• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Civil

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co, No. 29A02-1008-PL-965, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2011)

March 18, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, M. May

In a coverage dispute regarding occurrence polices, the time of the damage, and not the time of the alleged negligent conduct that caused the damage, is the triggering event for coverage. Further, coverage under both policies were triggered under the circumstances of this case and damages are to be apportioned pursuant to the language of the insurance policies.

Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., No. 89A05-1009-CT-549, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Ind. Code § 27-7-5-4(b) requires a per person liability limit comparison to determine underinsurance, and the mandatory per person limit for underinsured coverage pursuant to Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2 is $50,000.

B&B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Co., No. 45A04-1002-PL-183, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

A landowner, who raises the subterranean water table on his land and creates a federally regulated wetland, may not invoke the common enemy doctrine of water diversion and shield himself from liability to adjoining landowners whose property also became federally regulated wetlands.

Cotton v. Cotton, No. 43A03-1005-DR-325 , ___ N.E.2d___, (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 24, 2011)

February 25, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Summons served on wife was insufficient as a matter of law for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant, because it neither complied with Trial Rule 4(C)(5) or due process. Due process requires that, at a minimum, a respondent in a dissolution proceeding be notified of the risk of default for failure to appear or otherwise respond.

In Re Guardianship of J.Y., No. 27A02-1005-GU-744, ___ N.E.2d ___, (Ind. Ct. App., Feb 15, 2011)

February 18, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

“[R]equirements of a personal representative are not the same as the requirements for a guardian, and as a result a nonprofit corporation not authorized as a corporate fiduciary in Indiana may serve as guardian where it could not serve as a personal representative.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 210
  • Go to page 211
  • Go to page 212
  • Go to page 213
  • Go to page 214
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 254
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs