• 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

Smyth v. Hester, No. 29A02-0803-CV-237, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 12, 2009)

February 13, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Darden

Trial court’s order for attorney fees was remanded for further consideration and explanation, because it did not provide any insight as to the reason for the award of attorney fees, i.e., what the trial court found to be frivolous, unreasonable, and bad faith conduct.

Klotz v. Hoyt, No. 18S02-0807-CV-391, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 22, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, F. Sullivan, R. Shepard, Supreme

Klotz v. Hoyt (Ind., Dickson, J.) – Landlord’s untimely or inadequate statutory damage notice to tenant precludes only landlord’s claims for physical damage to the premises and does not bar landlord from recovery of unpaid rent and other losses.

Cooper Indus., LLC v. South Bend, No. 49S04-0711-CV-541, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Jan. 22, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: R. Shepard, Supreme

Landowner’s claims under the Environmental Legal Action statute accrued at the time the statute became effective.

Ramirez v. Wilson, No. 56A04-0806-CV-356, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 29, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, P. Riley

Viable fetus was not a child for the purposes of the Child Wrongful Death statute.

Indiana Family & Social Servs. Admin. v. Meyer, No. 69A01-0807-CV-358, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 30, 2009)

January 30, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Barnes, P. Mathias

Because plaintiff did not timely file the agency record or seek an additional extension of time in which to do so, its petition for judifical review of a final agency action was “subject to dismissal” under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act; the trial court, however, had discretion to find that a petition “subject to dismissal” should not, upon a proper showing, be dismissed.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 252
  • Go to page 253
  • Go to page 254
  • Go to page 255
  • 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