• 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

D.H. v. State, No. 49A05-1002-JV-92, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Student who threw a punch at another student but instead hit his teacher committed the equivalent of battery against his teacher under the doctrine of transferred intent.

Droscha v. Shepherd, No. 52A02-1001-PL-26, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 3, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford

Indiana extends judicial and/or quasi-judicial immunity to arbitrators and their sponsors.

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. McNeil, No. 02A03-1001-MI-90, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 5, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Kirsch

Trial court erred when it interpreted Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4(3) to impose a statute of limitations on the BMV’s ability to impose an administrative suspension.

City of Indianapolis v. Hicks, No. 49A02-1002-CT-95, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

(1) City waived its challenge based on the magistrate’s lack of authority to grant Plaintiff’s motion to correct error by failing to object until after time for ruling on the motion expired; (2) waiver notwithstanding, trial court properly used a nunc pro tunc order to grant Plaintiff’s motion, because the CCS provides a sufficient written memorial indicating the trial court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation within the required time.

Lucas v. U.S.A. Bank, N.A., No. 28A01-0910-CV-482, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Although Mortgage Company’s mortgage foreclosure claim against Homeowners was equitable, Homeowners’ counterclaims based on consumer protection statutes were legal in nature; thus, Homeowners are entitled to a jury trial on their legal claims.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 519
  • Go to page 520
  • Go to page 521
  • Go to page 522
  • Go to page 523
  • 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