• 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. Molter

Jennings v. Smiley, No. 24S-CT-186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2025).

January 27, 2025 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

The party seeking production of a smartphone must provide some evidence of the device’s use at a time when it could have been a contributing cause of the incident litigated and must describe the data sought with reasonable particularity.

Ind. Dep’t of Ins. v. Doe, No. 23S-CT-306, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 23, 2024).

December 30, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund can challenge whether a claim falls within the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) after a plaintiff concludes a settlement with a health care provider. A negligent-credentialing claim falls within the MMA only if the credentialed physician commits an act of medical malpractice. Claims premised on sexual assault by a physician during an authorized medical examination can fall within the MMA if the alleged misconduct stems from an inseparable part of the health care being rendered

Wohlt v. Wohlt, No. 24S-DR-385, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 21, 2024).

November 25, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, Supreme

Property settlement agreement had no ambiguity when it used the word “all” to describe division of assets; both forgotten and remembered assets were included in that description so that the property division would be final.

Cave Quarries, Inc. v. Warex LLC, No. 24S-CT-39, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 29, 2024).

September 3, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

A party is strictly liable for the damage its blasting causes to neighbors and bystanders, but not to one who hires the blaster.

Seabolt, Dillard, Tyson, and Robinson v. State, No. 24S-PC-270, 24S-PC-271, 24S-PC-272, 24S-PC-273, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 20, 2024).

August 26, 2024 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, D. Molter

Once a judge concludes their recusal is mandatory, they must continue recusing in future cases when confronted with the same concern that led them to recuse in the prior case. That is, unless their prior recusal was mistaken or circumstances have changed so that their recusal is no longer mandatory, in which case they again have a duty to preside.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 7
  • 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