• 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

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.

R.R.F. v. L.L.F., No. 69A01-1001-DR-77, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

When Mother would receive a $4,000 tax credit for her contributions to child’s college expenses, trial court erred under Support Guideline 8(b) in not giving Father a setoff against his share of the expenses to apportion the credit equitably.

Bandini v. Bandini, No. 49A04-1001-DR-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 8, 2010)

October 15, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

“[A] military spouse may not, by a post-decree waiver of retirement pay in favor of disability benefits or CRSC [Combat Related Special Compensation], unilaterally and voluntarily reduce the benefits awarded the former spouse in a dissolution decree.”

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 224
  • Go to page 225
  • Go to page 226
  • Go to page 227
  • Go to page 228
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 260
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs