• 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

Sibbing v. Cave, No. 49S02-0906-CV-00275, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 4, 2010)

March 5, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Shepard, Supreme

Evidence Rule 803(4)’s hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment applies only to patients’ statements, not to statements of physicians concerning diagnosis or treatment. Holds that recovery of medical expenses requires that “the treatment claimed must be necessary in the sense that it proximately resulted from the wrongful conduct,” and also holds that the “scope of liability” component of proximate cause allows recovery for “necessary” medical treatment even when the result of misdiagnosis or negligent administration.

In re Adoption of L.D., No. 49A02-0907-CV-671, __ N.E.2d. __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 2010)

February 26, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Since paternal grandparents adopting their grandchild were adoptive rather than biological grandparents, the maternal grandparent was not eligible for visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act.

In re Committment of J.W.B., No. 20A03-0909-CV-418, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 17, 2010)

February 19, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Trial court lacked authority to order that a civilly committed person not be transferred “without ten (10) days written notice to the court.”

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 235
  • Go to page 236
  • Go to page 237
  • Go to page 238
  • Go to page 239
  • 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