• 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

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.

Cynthia Welch v. Shawn D. Young, et al., No. 79A02-1012-CT-1407, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2011).

August 5, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

The Pfenning standard is applicable in the case of a mother hit in the knee by a youth baseball team member warming up, and to apply the Pfenning standard the Court must examine the actions of the alleged tortfeasor to determine if “the conduct of [the] participant” is within the “range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport.”

Lechien v. Wren, No. 48A02-1007-DR-882, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).

July 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

“[R]epudiation is not a release of a parent’s financial responsibility for the payment of child support and is not an acceptable justification to abate support payments for a child less than twenty-one years of age.”

Johnson, et al v. Sullivan et al, No. 82A05-1102-MI-108, ___ N.E.2d ____ (Ind. Ct. App. July 27, 2011).

July 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, J. Baker

“[E]vidence of mailing on a particular date, even if it contradicts a postmark, is competent to prove filing on that date for purposes of the Medical Malpractice Act.”

Estate of Wilgus S. Gibbs, Sr., No. 81A01-1011-ES-560, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., July 15, 2011).

July 22, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

A self-proving clause in a will creates a rebuttable presumption that the document was properly executed, and publication of the will is one aspect of that execution.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 211
  • Go to page 212
  • Go to page 213
  • Go to page 214
  • Go to page 215
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs