• 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

Williams v. Tharp, No. 29S02-0901-CV-40, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Oct. 13, 2009)

October 16, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, Supreme, T. Boehm

In a defamation action, plaintiff can overcome defendant’s claim of qualified privilege by showing that defendant made the statement without belief or grounds for belief in its truth; the proper standard for determining grounds for belief in truth is not reckless disregard; the absence of any discernable basis for the truth of the matter can, however, serve as circumstantial evidence of a reporting citizen’s actual knowledge of falsity.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 247
  • Page 248
  • Page 249
  • Page 250
  • Page 251
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 263
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs