• 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

Cave Quarries, Inc. v. Warex LLC, No. 24S-CT-39, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 29, 2024).

September 3, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

A party is strictly liable for the damage its blasting causes to neighbors and bystanders, but not to one who hires the blaster.

Perdue Farms, Inc. v. L&B Transport, LLC, No. 24S-PL-40, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 13, 2024).

August 19, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, L. Rush, Supreme

Forum selection clause cannot be enforced against non-contracting employees for claims against them arising from the contract.

In re Paternity of E.B.K., No. 23A-JP-2316, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 14, 2024).

August 19, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, T. Crone

The thirty-seven-month time period between the temporary custody order and the permanent custody order was an extraordinary delay that prejudiced mother and violated her due process rights. Trial courts have a statutory duty under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-6 to expedite custody proceedings.

M.M. v. L.P., No. 23A-PO-2089, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2024).

August 5, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, L. Weissmann

The trial court was not required to transfer a pending protection order case to the special judge handling parties’ post-dissolution matters when the protection order did not relate to any pending post-dissolution proceedings and did not impact parenting time.

In re Guardianship of Adducci, No. 23A-GU-2433, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 17, 2024).

July 22, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

FSSA had a right to intervene in guardianship because the spousal support order diverted money that would have otherwise been used to pay medical bills. The trial court could not increase spousal support because the state Medicaid statute requires a “fair hearing before the State agency” to determine if an allowance should be increased.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 254
  • 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