• 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

Terry v. Stephens, 54A01-0908-CV-419, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Children of a parent who provides love, care, and affection, but no financial or non-financial support, are not dependent children pursuant to the Wrongful Death Act.

Harris v. Harris, No. 49A04-0905-CV-256, ___ N.E.2d. ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Although the court did not have personal jurisdiction over husband, it could dissolve the marriage and change the parties’ status from married to unmarried; it could not, however, adjudicate the incidences of marriage. Trial court also erred by not complying with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act in the child custody proceedings.

In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of I.B., No. 03A05-0912-JV-676, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Trial court did not err in denying appellate counsel for mother in TPR proceedings; even if mother had requested appellate counsel, she failed to make any effort for the purpose of an appeal and was unlikely to prevail on the merits.

Bishop v. Housing Auth. of South Bend, No. 71A03-0906-CV-273, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 1, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Tenant had right to jury trial on the ultimate outcome of ejectment proceedings, but not on the prejudgment immediate possession hearing.

State ex rel. Crain Heating Air Cond. & Refrig., Inc. v. Clark Circuit Court, No. 10S00-0910-OR-500, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

If a ruling involves the granting, modifying, or dissolving of a temporary or preliminary injunction and has not been entered within ten days after the hearing thereon, there has been a delay in ruling and an interested party may immediately praecipe for withdrawal under the procedure provided in Trial Rule 53.1(E); it is not necessary for a party to await the thirty-day period described in Trial Rule 53.1(A) before filing a praecipe for withdrawal.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 234
  • Go to page 235
  • Go to page 236
  • Go to page 237
  • Go to page 238
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 254
  • 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