• 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

Blankenship v. Duke, No. 19A-GU-518, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2019).

August 12, 2019 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

When a trial court orders parenting time in a guardianship case, it cannot allow the guardian to determine the parent’s parenting time with their child.

Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, No. 18A-MI-2150, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2019).

August 5, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

For a tax sale, auditor is still charged with knowledge of the contents of its records and is constitutionally obligated to search those records.

Edwards v. Edwards, No. 19A-DR-509, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2019).

August 5, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Although the US Supreme Court opinion Howell v. Howell holds that state courts are not permitted to order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss of the spouse’s portion of the veteran’s retirement pay caused by the veteran’s waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefit, the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter an order on veteran’s retirement pay prior to that opinion.

In re Adoption of C.A.H., No. 19A-AD-240, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2019).

August 5, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch, N. Vaidik

Father’s consent to adoption was irrevocably implied pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-19-10-1.2(g) because father failed to appear for the final hearing.

Wallen v. Hossler, No. 19A-CT-40, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 23, 2019).

July 29, 2019 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam, J. Baker

Plaintiff may pursue excess damages from the Patient’s Compensation Fund either after a jury trial or after he has entered into a settlement agreement; nothing in the Medical Malpractice Act requires plaintiff to accept doctor’s offer to settle his liability.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 75
  • Go to page 76
  • Go to page 77
  • Go to page 78
  • Go to page 79
  • 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