• 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

Weinberg v. Boyer, No. 45A03-1011-CT-598, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 19, 2011).

October 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

In a medical malpractice suit, patient abandonment is part of the underlying medical malpractice and should be evaluated in light of the medical malpractice suit’s standard of care.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2011).

October 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown, P. Riley

The correct interpretation of Ind. Code § 32-29-8-3 is that the one-year redemption period begins after the sale of the property.

Johnson v. Jacobs, No. 47A01-1102-CT-35, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 20, 2011).

October 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Father’s intentional criminal actions of killing his daughter and himself trigger the intervening, superseding cause doctrine, and broke the causal chain between the defendant’s alleged negligence and the daughter’s death; none of the actions or inaction of any of the defendants could be considered a proximate cause of the daughter’s death as a matter of law.

In re C.G., No. 49S04-1101-JT-4, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., Oct. 11, 2011).

October 13, 2011 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Adopts the factors set out in State of West Virginia ex rel. Jaenette H., 529 S.E.2d at 877 (W.Va. 2000) for trial courts to determine whether an incarcerated parent is permitted to attend a hearing on the termination of his or her parental rights.

Allen v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A02-1011-CT-117, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 12, 2011).

October 13, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

A complaint challenging reasonableness of the fees the defendant hospital charged the plaintiffs states a claim for breach of contract because no price was specified in the contracts; plaintiffs only agreed to pay a reasonable charge for defendant hospital’s services, and if the fees charged are unreasonable this would constitute a breach of contract.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 466
  • Go to page 467
  • Go to page 468
  • Go to page 469
  • Go to page 470
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 586
  • 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