• 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

Marion County Auditor v. Saw Mill Creek, LLC, No. 49A02-0912-CV-1192, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 3, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Statutory requirement that auditor send a first-class mail notice of tax due to property owner when initial certified mail notice is returned undelivered must be complied with to comport with due process.

Rider v. McCamment, No. 16A01-1004-CT-180, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 6, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, P. Riley

When home-buyer was by agreement not to be on home construction premises without permission, fact home-buyer had been on the premises numerous times and may have been seen then by contractor precluded summary judgment against home-buyer on her negligence claim for injuries suffered when she was on the construction site.

Brindle v. Arata, No. 02A05-1004-SC-239, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Student loan funds, exempt from garnishment under federal statute, retain their exempt status after deposit in the student’s bank account.

M.S. v. C.S., No. 03A01-1003-DR-140, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 7, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Child custody statute does not authorize a parent to obtain “joint custody with third parties by simply filing a joint petition with a trial court, because to do so would allow parents and third parties to circumvent the requirements of the Adoption Act.”

Forman v. Penn, No. 33A01-1007-CT-343, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 8, 2010)

December 10, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Boehm

When insurer intervened in tort suit and obtained summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim it had no duty to defend, without a Trial Rule 54 determination by the trial judge of “no just reason for delay” and “an express direction for the entry of judgment” there was no appealable final judgment on the duty to defend issue.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 214
  • Go to page 215
  • Go to page 216
  • Go to page 217
  • Go to page 218
  • 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