• 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

Hizer v. Holt, No. 71A03-1002-PL-127, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 2010)

October 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Home seller may be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentations made on the IC 32-21-5-7 Sales Disclosure Form if the buyer can prove the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect at the time the form is completed.

Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2010)

October 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, T. Crone

Small claims proceeding supplemental order to pay $50 per month was based on a proper determination of ability to pay, but order for debtor to make five job applications per week was an abuse of discretion.

Branham v. Varble, No. 62A01-1004-SC-192, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2010)

October 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, T. Crone

Supreme court’s proceeding supplemental procedure for trial court to determine unrepresented debtor’s entitlement to UCCC or resident-householder exemption does not require the trial court to determine unrepresented debtor’s possible entitlement to other exemptions.

J.B. v. E.B., 34A04-1002-DR-110, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2010)

October 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

J.B. v. E.B. (Ind. Ct. App., Vaidik, J.)-Child custody modification proceeding based on report the son had touched his sister inappropriately was not subject to the counselor/client privilege, so that records of son’s counseling were admissible.

Fisher v. Giddens, No. 48A02-1002-EU-197, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 21, 2010)

October 22, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, W. Garrard

When limited partner bought annuity in the name of the limited partnership and then had it put in his own name for tax purposes, the annuity remained partnership property despite the name change.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 219
  • Go to page 220
  • Go to page 221
  • Go to page 222
  • Go to page 223
  • 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