• 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

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.

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.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 216
  • Go to page 217
  • Go to page 218
  • Go to page 219
  • Go to page 220
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 256
  • 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