• 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

Marshall v. State, No. 21A-CR-1123, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 7, 2022).

January 10, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Brown

Upon a request for self-representation, the defendant should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish a knowing and intelligent decision.

K.G. v. Smith, No. 21S-CT-561, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 22, 2021).

January 3, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

When a caretaker assumes responsibility for a child, and when that caretaker owes a duty of care to the child’s parent or guardian, a claim against the caretaker for the negligent infliction of emotional distress may proceed when the parent or guardian later discovers, with irrefutable certainty, that the caretaker sexually abused that child and when that abuse severely impacted the parent or guardian’s emotional health.

Nick’s Packing Svcs., Inc. v. Chaney, No. 21A-SC-820, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2021).

January 3, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Mathias

Company who removed resident’s possessions during an eviction was a bailee of a mutual benefit bailment and had a duty to exercise ordinary care with resident’s possessions.

Lloyd v. Kuznar, No. 21A-CT-1338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2021).

January 3, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims because she failed to apprise the court of her new address, but the court should have set aside the default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim when the method of service on plaintiff was “nothing more than a mere gesture” because the defendant knew that the address for plaintiff was incorrect.

Clark County REMC v. Reis, No. 21S-CT-343, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 29, 2021).

January 3, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Board policy, which established reimbursement benefits for former directors, was not an offer because it did not convey with reasonable certainty promises manifesting an intention or invitation to contract with another; no contract existed.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 78
  • Go to page 79
  • Go to page 80
  • Go to page 81
  • Go to page 82
  • 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