• 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

Flores v. Gutierrez, No. 45A04-1101-CT-28, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2011).

August 12, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Jury’s zero-damage award in negligence case was consistent with the evidence.

Kornelik v. Mittal Steel USA, Inc., et al., No. 45A03-1011-CT-58, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2011).

August 10, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

An injured employee who settles with a third party for substantially less than the damages value of his claim without the consent of his employer or his worker’s compensation carrier can subsequently reduce his lien arising under the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Act by attorney fees and pro rata costs pursuant to Indiana Code section 22-3-2-13; however, the injured employee cannot reduce the lien in the same proportion that his full recovery was reduced pursuant to Ind. Code 34-51-2-19.

Cynthia Welch v. Shawn D. Young, et al., No. 79A02-1012-CT-1407, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2011).

August 5, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

The Pfenning standard is applicable in the case of a mother hit in the knee by a youth baseball team member warming up, and to apply the Pfenning standard the Court must examine the actions of the alleged tortfeasor to determine if “the conduct of [the] participant” is within the “range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport.”

Randolph v. Buss, No. 33A04-1010-MI-684, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).

July 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Legislature intended that inmate’s left-over educational credit time after his release on parole would not still be available to him when his parole was revoked and he returned to prison.

Lock v. State, No. 35A04-1010-CR-641, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 26, 2011).

July 29, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker, M. May

Evidence defendant’s motorcycle was going 43 miles per hour did not prove its “maximum design speed” was 25 miles per hour or more, a “design speed” the State had to prove in order to show defendant was operating a “motor vehicle” rather than a “motorized bicycle” so that defendant was guilty of driving while suspended.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 477
  • Go to page 478
  • Go to page 479
  • Go to page 480
  • Go to page 481
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 589
  • 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