• 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

Koors v. Steffen, No. 57A03-0904-CV-167, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 6, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

When contract provided for arbitration and also left a chance a lien could arise, the possibility the court would have to engage in foreclosure procedures depending on the arbitration outcome required the court to stay the litigation pending the arbitration, rather than dismissing the suit.

Miller v. Yedlowski, No. 49A02-0901-CV-78, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 10, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Party seeking a second extension of time to respond to summary judgment motion must do so prior to expiration of the period of the first extension.

Inlow v. Inlow, No. 29S02-0902-CV-89, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Nov. 18, 2009)

November 20, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

When settlement resolves a wrongful death action, a court should direct payment from the pre-trial wrongful death settlement that part of the medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses that corresponds to the ratio of the total of such expenses to the estimated total damages sustained.

Brown-Day v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0903-CV-277, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2009)

November 6, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Insurance Company was the sole defendant, and neither Evidence Rule 411 nor the common law permits the substitution of a non-party to conceal its identity as an insurer.

Bingley v. Bingley, No. 02A03-0904-CV-187, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2009)

November 6, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, T. Crone

Husband’s employer-paid post-retirement health insurance premiums were not a marital asset subject to division, because they were purely supplemental, meaning that they were not obtained using marital assets, and were non-elective and not subject to divestiture, division, or transfer.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 237
  • Go to page 238
  • Go to page 239
  • Go to page 240
  • Go to page 241
  • 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