• 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

Putnam Co. Sheriff v. Price, No. 49A02-1009-DR-105, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Oct. 6, 2011).

October 6, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

County Sheriff Department “that neither owns, maintains, nor controls a county road” does not have a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions of that road.

Fratter v. Rice, No. 53A04-1101-CT-1, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 19, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

The court properly gave the Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction for responsible cause because it “closely tracks our Supreme Court’s definition of proximate cause” and although it does not contain the word “omission,” the term “conduct” includes both acts and omissions.

Avery v. Avery, No. No. 49S05-1102-PL-76, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Sept. 20, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“The Indiana Trial Rules apply to will contest actions, and the failure to file an answer or responsive pleading in accordance with Trial Rule 7 may result in a default judgment.”

Goldberg v. Farno, No. 41A01-1007-MF-348, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 26, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

“Plain legal prejudice” is adopted as the standard for determining whether a non-settling defendant has standing to challenge a partial settlement to which it is not a party.

K.S. v. B.W., No. 22A05-1102-DR-79, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 28, 2011).

September 29, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Ind. Code 31-9-2-35.5, defining a de facto custodian, applies only to custody proceedings after a paternity determination, actions for child custody or modification of custody, and temporary placement of a child in need of services taken into custody; it does not apply in the case of visitation rights of a boyfriend over an ex-girlfriend’s child.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 211
  • Page 212
  • Page 213
  • Page 214
  • Page 215
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 262
  • 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