• 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

K.O.A. Properties, LLC v. Matheison, No. 48A04-1207-SC-365,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

Small claims court had personal jurisdiction over a defendant even though it was not listed as a separate party defendant on the notice of claim and defendant was not separately served with the notice, because it was provided with service reasonably calculated to inform defendant that a small claims action had been instituted against it.

Zavodnik v. Richards, No. 49A02-1209-CC-750, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2013).

March 14, 2013 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes

When a trial court has involuntarily dismissed a case without prejudice pursuant to T. R. 41(E), T.R. 41(F) gives dismissing trial court the discretion to consider whether a complaint should be reinstated. Plaintiff should not file a substantially similar or identical complaint in another court.

Heaton v. State, No. 48S02-1206-CR-350, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Mar. 5, 2013).

March 8, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

A probation revocation court must apply the preponderance standard, not probable cause, in determining whether the state has proved the defendant committed a new offense.

Santiago v. State, No. 45A03-1207-CR-304, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 5, 2013).

March 8, 2013 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Taken as a whole, trial court’s presumption of innocence instructions were proper, even though they did not contain express direction that the jurors must fit the evidence to the presumption of innocence or reconcile the evidence on the theory defendant was innocent.

KJ.R. v. M.A.B., No. 41S01-1209-MI-00556,___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., March 7, 2013).

March 8, 2013 Filed Under: Civil, Juvenile Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Grandparent visitation was order was voidable, because it failed to address required findings, and was remanded to correct those defects through new findings and conclusions.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 423
  • Go to page 424
  • Go to page 425
  • Go to page 426
  • Go to page 427
  • 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