• 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

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.

Duke Energy Ind., LLC v. Carmel, No. 23S-EX-129, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 30, 2024).

June 3, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, D. Molter, G. Slaughter, M. Massa

Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission properly held that city ordinance was unreasonable and void because it threatened to impose unreasonable expenses on an energy company, which would in turn impact all of the energy company’s customers throughout Indiana.

Red Lobster Restaurants, LLC v. Fricke, No. 23S‐CT‐304, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 21, 2024).

May 27, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: D. Molter, Supreme

A plaintiff‐debtor’s omission of a lawsuit from their bankruptcy asset schedule does not deprive them of standing to pursue that lawsuit. Judicial estoppel does not bar the claim if the bankruptcy court permits the plaintiff‐debtor to cure their omission by amending their asset schedule.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • 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