• 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

St. Joseph Hosp.. v. Cain, No. 02A05-1006-PL-386, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 24, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Failure to file a verified petition as required by the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act does not deprive a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, and is a “procedural error.” Further, AOPA’s verified petition requirement does not preclude a court promulgated rule, so that an amended petition relates back to the date of the filing of the original petition in accordance with Trial Rule 15.

New v. Personal Representative for the Estate of New, No. 71A04-0912-CV-744, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 2, 2010)

December 3, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Estate beneficiaries were not entitled to notice when the personal representative’s amended final accounting, changed as ordered by the court after notice and a hearing, was filed and approved by the court.

Lacy-McKinney v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., No. 71A03-0912-CV-587, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

“HUD [mortgage] servicing responsibilities . . . are binding conditions precedent that must be complied with before a mortgagee has the right to foreclose on a HUD property.”

Lombardi v. Vandeusen, No. 10A01-0910-CV-491, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Trial court erroneously concluded jurisdiction to modify support was not properly with Illinois court under UIFSA; ex parte pre-hearing conference, from which pro se obligee was excluded despite request to attend, at which evidence was discussed and documents were exchanged violated due process and results in opinion’s directing that case be assigned to a different judicial officer on remand.

Carter v. Grace Whitney Properties, No. 82A04-1003-SC-177, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 23, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

Local rules authorizing contempt to enforce “personal order of garnishment,” an order to debtor to pay a money judgment in installments, violates Indiana Constitution; “personal orders of garnishment” may be used to compel debtor to apply property creditor shows is not exempt from execution; creditor may not use successive proceedings supplemental without showing new facts giving rise to belief the judgment debtor has property or income to satisfy the judgment.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 215
  • Go to page 216
  • Go to page 217
  • Go to page 218
  • Go to page 219
  • 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