• 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

Appeals

Grange Mut. Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co, No. 29A02-1008-PL-965, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2011)

March 18, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, M. May

In a coverage dispute regarding occurrence polices, the time of the damage, and not the time of the alleged negligent conduct that caused the damage, is the triggering event for coverage. Further, coverage under both policies were triggered under the circumstances of this case and damages are to be apportioned pursuant to the language of the insurance policies.

Gray v. State, No. 82A01-1005-CR-223, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 8, 2011)

March 11, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, J. Kirsch

Evidence of constructive possession of marijuana, found in defendant’s house under her coffee table next to two juveniles on the couch, was insufficient to convict.

White v. State, No. 15A01-1008-CR-463, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Mar. 9, 2011)

March 11, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

Record of defendant’s felony conviction reached in another state when he was fifteen years old was insufficient to support habitual offender finding without additional evidence on the other state’s procedures assuring that he was convicted as an adult.

Lakes v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., No. 89A05-1009-CT-549, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Ind. Code § 27-7-5-4(b) requires a per person liability limit comparison to determine underinsurance, and the mandatory per person limit for underinsured coverage pursuant to Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2 is $50,000.

B&B, LLC v. Lake Erie Land Co., No. 45A04-1002-PL-183, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, J. Baker

A landowner, who raises the subterranean water table on his land and creates a federally regulated wetland, may not invoke the common enemy doctrine of water diversion and shield himself from liability to adjoining landowners whose property also became federally regulated wetlands.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 339
  • Page 340
  • Page 341
  • Page 342
  • Page 343
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 408
  • 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