• 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

Robertson v. State, No. 19S-PL-432, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 30, 2020).

April 6, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, S. David, Supreme

For the claims to recover public funds pursuant to Ind. Code § 5-11-5-1(a), the limitations period begins to run only after the Office of the Indiana Attorney General receives a final, verified report from the State Board of Accounts. Claims pursuant to the Crime Victims Relief Act are governed by the discovery rule.

Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 20S-CT-233, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 31, 2020).

April 6, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, M. Massa, Supreme

Testimony compelled by a subpoena or other statutory duty is protected under the public policy exception to at-will employment.

In re J.C., No. 20S-JT-235, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 1, 2020).

April 6, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Where the parent affirmatively waived the requirement, a parent is not entitled to dismissal of a TPR petition due to the juvenile court’s failure to complete a hearing within the statutorily required 180 days.

In re Paternity of M.S., No. 19A-JP-1595, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2020).

April 6, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, N. Vaidik

The time period relevant to establishing a de facto custodianship excludes any period of time after a child custody proceeding has been commenced and while it is pending. After a child custody proceeding has been commenced and has concluded, however, the calculation of the time relevant to a de facto custodian determination is not tolled.

Furbee v. Wilson, No. 19A-PL-1756, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 30, 2020).

March 30, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Before a landlord makes a decision about a tenant’s request for an emotional-support animal, it can conduct a “meaningful review” to determine whether the accommodation is required; this review includes requesting documentation, such as information about the disability and the disability-related need for the animal, and opening a dialogue.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 68
  • Go to page 69
  • Go to page 70
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to page 72
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 260
  • 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