• 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

E. Friedlander

In re M.F., No. 21A04-1002-JP-84, ___ N.E.2d ____ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2010)

December 28, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, T. Crone

Sperm Donor Agreements may be valid if they meet criteria beyond the traditional elements of a contract; a physician must be involved in the insemination and the written instrument memorializing the arrangement must be sufficiently thorough and formalized. When parties enter into a facially valid donor agreement contract, the party seeking to avoid the contract has the burden of proof on matters of avoidance.

Hunt Construction Group, Inc., v. Garrett, No. 49A02-1001-CT-86, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 14, 2010)

December 17, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, M. Barnes

Construction manager’s contractual duties are interpreted to give it a duty for safety of contractor’s employees; argument manager had a “nondelegable” duty toward contractor employee is rejected.

Curtis v. State, No. 20A03-1002-CR-110, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 19, 2010)

November 24, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander

“[A] person’s unfitness to operate a vehicle . . . is to be determined by considering his capability as a whole, not component by component, such that impairment of any of the three abilities necessary for the safe operation of a vehicle equals impairment within the meaning of I.C. § 9-30-5-2.”

Branham v. Varble, No. 62A04-1004-SC-256, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2010)

October 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, T. Crone

Small claims proceeding supplemental order to pay $50 per month was based on a proper determination of ability to pay, but order for debtor to make five job applications per week was an abuse of discretion.

Branham v. Varble, No. 62A01-1004-SC-192, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 28, 2010)

October 29, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Friedlander, T. Crone

Supreme court’s proceeding supplemental procedure for trial court to determine unrepresented debtor’s entitlement to UCCC or resident-householder exemption does not require the trial court to determine unrepresented debtor’s possible entitlement to other exemptions.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • 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