• 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

Hillebrand v. Supervised Estate of Charlotte Fern Large, No. 70A01-0902-CV-72, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2009)

October 16, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

The damages awarded in a wrongful death action may include the reasonable attorney fees necessary to pursue the action, and these damages inure to the exclusive benefit of the estate for the payment of such costs.

Myers v. Leedy, No. 85S02-0808-CV-478, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Oct. 15, 2009)

October 16, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Rucker, R. Shepard, Supreme

If, at the time of filing suit for forfeiture, a land contract vendor knows, or upon reasonable diligence should have known, that a tenant is in possession of the property, the tenant’s leasehold interest survives the forfeiture action unless the tenant is made a party to the forfeiture litigation.

League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita, No. 49A02-0901-CV-40, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 17, 2009)

September 25, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Indiana’s Voter I.D. law violates the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution.

In re Adoption of A.S., D.S., C.S., & J.S., No. 49A02-0901-CV-60, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)

September 11, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Where parents executed consents for one person to adopt their children, then (without withdrawing the first consents) executed subsequent consents for two other people to adopt their children, neither Indiana’s adoption statutes nor public policy prohibits the subsequent consents.

Baker v. Taylor, No. 18A04-0812-CV-746, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 8, 2009)

September 11, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, M. May

Where an account is established by an attorney-in-fact using entirely the funds of a principal, the attorney-in-fact is named joint owner or POD beneficiary, and the principal has no direct involvement in, or even awareness of, the creation of the account, the survivor cannot be presumed the owner of the accounts.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 240
  • Go to page 241
  • Go to page 242
  • Go to page 243
  • Go to page 244
  • 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