• 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

Ind. Repertory Theatre, No. 21A-PL-628, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 4, 2022).

January 10, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. May

Insurance policy language “direct physical loss or direct physical damage” did not encompass theatre’s claim for loss of use of its facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 88
  • Go to page 89
  • Go to page 90
  • Go to page 91
  • Go to page 92
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 596
  • 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