• 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

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Barabas, No. 48A04-1004-CC-232, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 17, 2011)

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

“Mortgagee” Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was a “mere nominee” and “bare legal title” holder without interest in the property separate from that of the original lender Irwin, and as mortgage provided for notices only to Irwin the lender, and not to MERS, MERS’s assignee Citimortgage was not entitled to have default in the foreclosure of another mortgage vacated on the basis only Irwin and not MERS received foreclosure notice.

Pfenning v. Lineman, No. 27S02-1006-CV-331, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 18, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

“ We reject the concept that a participant in a sporting event owes no duty of care to protect others from inherent risks of the sport but adopt instead the view that summary judgment is proper due to the absence of breach of duty when the conduct of a sports participant is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport and therefore reasonable as a matter of law.”

Tracy v. Morell, No. 59A01-1009-PL-488, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 19, 2011)

May 20, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Najam

Sale of tractor with altered identification number was subject to rescission on grounds of mistake and public policy, and buyer was entitled to recovery of payments with interest.

Konopasek v. State, No. 25S03-1012-CR-669, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 5, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

When defendant testified he forthrightly had reported the fight he had been in to his probation officer, conveying the impression he was honest with the officer and hence honest generally, the State was entitled to establish a motive to lie about self-defense in the fight by eliciting the fact the defendant was on probation for methamphetamine offenses and faced significant jail time if probation was revoked.

Lacey v. State, No. 02S05-1010-CR-601, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 10, 2011)

May 13, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

[T]he Indiana Constitution does not require prior judicial authorization for the execution of a warrant without knocking and announcing when justified by exigent circumstances known by police when the warrant was obtained,” although obtaining such prior judicial authorization is the better police practice.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 500
  • Page 501
  • Page 502
  • Page 503
  • Page 504
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 601
  • 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