• 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

AO Alfa-Bank v. Doe, No. 20A-MI-2352, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2021).

May 24, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider a motion to quash an out-of-state subpoena which had not been domesticated.

Br.S. v. J.N.S., No. 20A-AD-1790, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 12, 2021).

May 17, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Drug-addicted parents should have the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and then reestablish a relationship with their children, but they do not have an open-ended pass for not communicating significantly with their children.

Arrendale v. American Imaging & MRI, LLC, No. 20A-CT-2184, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 14, 2021).

May 17, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

A hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a non-hospital facility.

Wright v. State, 20S-LW-260, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 4, 2021).

May 11, 2021 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter

When deciding whether a defendant properly waives the right to counsel in capital and LWOP cases, a trial court should frame its waiver inquiry with the state’s heightened reliability interests in mind. That inquiry should focus on whether, and to what extent, the defendant has prior experience with the legal system; the scope of the defendant’s knowledge of criminal law, legal procedures, rules of evidence, and sentencing; and whether and to what extent the defendant can articulate and present any possible defenses, including lesser-included offenses and mitigating evidence.

Lake Imaging, LLC v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc, No. 20A-CT-1490, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2021).

May 11, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Indemnity claims brought by one health care provider against another are subject to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 103
  • Go to page 104
  • Go to page 105
  • Go to page 106
  • Go to page 107
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 596
  • 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