• 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

Innovative Therapy Solutions Inc., v. Greenhill Manor Management, LLC, No. 19A-CC-1717, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 25, 2019).

November 25, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey

Default judgment was not void for lack of personal jurisdiction because the complaint was missing the affidavit of debt; trial court properly issued a notice to the parties allowing plaintiff to submit an affidavit of debt without amending the complaint.

Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., No. 19S-PL-37, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 12, 2019).

November 18, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, Supreme

“Under the equitable estoppel doctrine, a party’s conduct—even relating to the repair of goods—may toll a contractually agreed-upon limitations period when that conduct is of a sufficient affirmative character to prevent inquiry, elude investigation, or mislead the other party into inaction.”

Hernandez-Velazquez v. Hernandez, No. 18A-DR-3109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 14, 2019).

November 18, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Trial court properly set aside property conveyances under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act to effectuate the division of marital assets during a divorce.

State v. Timbs, No. 27S04-1702-MI-70, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 28, 2019).

November 4, 2019 Filed Under: Civil, Criminal Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, Supreme

The Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines places not only an instrumentality limit on use-based in rem fines, but also a proportionality one. Based on the totality of the circumstances, if the punitive value of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the underlying offenses and the owner’s culpability for the property’s criminal use, the fine is unconstitutionally excessive.

In re Ma.H., No. 19S-JT-323, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 31, 2019).

November 4, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Trial court did not violate father’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by requiring father to select and complete a course of sex-offender treatment as part of civil child welfare proceedings.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 70
  • Go to page 71
  • Go to page 72
  • Go to page 73
  • Go to page 74
  • 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