• 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

Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, No. 94S00-0912-CQ-559, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., May 13, 2010)

May 14, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

An entity that purchases and later sells a wrecked vehicle is required to apply for a salvage title under Ind. Code § 9-22-3-11(e) when it no longer owns the vehicle upon receipt of the certificate of title.

Buss v. Harris, No. 52A02-0911-CV-1088, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2010)

May 14, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Where defendant was not determined to be a sexually violent predator at sentencing, the Department of Correction could not later make that determination. Thus, the trial court properly declined to require the defendant to register as a sexually violent predator for life.

Baugh v. State, No. 18A04-0911-CR-621 , __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden, T. Crone

Defendant’s argument that live testimony on sexually violent predator status was required by the SVP statute was waived by defendant’s failure at sentencing to object to its absence.

In re the Paternity of N.L.P., No. 45S03-0904-JV-133, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Apr. 30, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

Where the parties in a domestic relations dispute sign a written agreement retaining the services of a guardian ad litem, the trial court is bound to enforce the terms of the agreement when awarding fees and expenses incurred by the GAL, unless the terms are contrary to public policy.

Cutter v. Classic Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 49A05-0906-CV-315, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., May 5, 2010)

May 7, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, T. Crone

Cutter v. Classic Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (Ind. Ct. App., Crone, J.) – (1) Because employees’ claim against employer was completely distinct from employer’s claim against his insurance company, a distribution from the insurance company’s liquidation estate to the employer’s assignee did not implicate the prohibition against double recovery; (2) because a suit for the dissolution of an insurance company has been regarded as an equitable action, the suit was not triable to a jury.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 230
  • Go to page 231
  • Go to page 232
  • Go to page 233
  • Go to page 234
  • 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