• 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

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.

K. L. v. M. H., No. 41A01-1003-JP-145, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil

Trial court did not err in appointing parenting time coordinator sua sponte when parties did not object and record was undisputed parents could not cooperate enough to independently implement parenting time schedule.

Booher v. Sheeram, LLC d/b/a Hampton Inn of Elkhart, No. 20A03-1005-CT-338, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Counsel must file a formal request for an extension of time to respond to a motion for summary judgment, even if opposing counsel has informally agreed to an extension.

Holmes v. Celadon Trucking Servs. of Ind., Inc., No. 49A02-1007-PL-714, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 15, 2010)

November 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

An action commences when the initiating party files the original and necessary copies of the complaint, the prescribed filing fee, and the original and necessary copies of the summons. Delayed filing of an appearance has no impact on the commencement of the action for statute of limitations purposes.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 217
  • Go to page 218
  • Go to page 219
  • Go to page 220
  • Go to page 221
  • 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