• 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

Harper v. S&H Leasing, et al, No. 25S-PL-111, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 9, 2026).

April 13, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

The Crime Victim’s Relief Act allows trial courts to award treble damages to victims of certain criminal offenses in a civil claim against the wrongdoer. To prevail under the CVRA, a plaintiff must prove the defendant committed all elements of the criminal offense.

Geels v. Flottemesch, et al, No. 25S-PL-225, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2026).

April 13, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

ERISA is a preemption defense that must be raised at the trial court level or it is waived. If a fiduciary relationship is breached those actions can amount to constructive fraud which in turn supports the imposition of a constructive trust.

Martinez v. Smith, et al, No. 26S-CT-112, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Apr. 8, 2026).

April 13, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, Supreme

The common-law duty under the Reece case to refrain from creating hazardous conditions encompasses not just the paved portion of the roadway but also traffic-control devices within the public right-of-way.

Olbera, et al. v. Sykes, No. 25A-JP-2005, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 30, 2026).

March 30, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. DeBoer

Marital presumption as legal parent rebutted by biological father of child as biological father did not relinquish his rights to legal parentage.

Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau and Indiana Department of Insurance v. Technology Insurance Company, No. 26S-PL-83, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 17, 2026).

March 23, 2026 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, Supreme

Whether the Company is entitled to relief rests on two questions: first, whether the Company had to follow the dispute-resolution provisions set out in the Assigned Risk Plan and agreements, limiting the Company’s relief in the trial court to judicial review under the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act; second, assuming the Company is limited to seeking recourse under AOPA, whether the Company properly sought judicial review.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 264
  • 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