• 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

Kitchen v. Kitchen, et al, No. 27A04-1101-DR-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 29, 2011)

September 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Only parents, grandparents and step-parents have standing to pursue visitation with a child.

Branham v. Varble & Chastain, No. 62S01-1103-SC-14, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Aug. 30, 2011)

September 1, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Self-represented parties in small claims court do not forfeit the generic exemption statute and the Social Security exemptions even if the litigants do not know enough to plead them; even if an information of contempt has not been filed, a court does not err when it orders a party to return for status checks a limited number of times; orders to seek employment or to seek better employment are not a proper part of a proceeding supplemental.

Howard Regional Health System v. Gordon, No. 34S02-1009-CV-476, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Aug. 10, 2011).

August 12, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme

Claim against hospital for loss of childbirth records was one for medical malpractice. Health records maintenance statutes do not confer a private right of action for loss of records. Parents have no independent action for spoliation against the hospital.

Flores v. Gutierrez, No. 45A04-1101-CT-28, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2011).

August 12, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Jury’s zero-damage award in negligence case was consistent with the evidence.

Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., et al., No. 45A03-1011-CT-58, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2011).

August 10, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

An injured employee who settles with a third party for substantially less than the damages value of his claim without the consent of his employer or his worker’s compensation carrier can subsequently reduce his lien arising under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act by attorney fees and pro rata costs pursuant to Indiana Code section 22-3-2-13; however, the injured employee cannot reduce the lien in the same proportion that his full recovery was reduced pursuant to Ind. Code 34-51-2-19.

  • « 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 260
  • 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