• 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. Tavitas

Wells v. Wells, No. 23A-DR-990, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 12, 2024).

March 18, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas, P. Foley

Even though father agreed to pay for daughter’s college education in the marital settlement agreement, daughter could repudiate their relationship and relieve father of his duty to pay.

Peters v. Girl Scouts of Southwest Ind., Inc., No. 23A-CT-1342, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2024).

March 4, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Mother could add child’s guardian as a defendant under the Child Wrongful Death Statute, but both father and guardian were required to assert a claim within 2-years to be entitled to an apportionment of damages.

Davis-Brumley v. Fair Oaks Farms, LLC, No. 23A-CT-1610, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 29, 2024).

March 4, 2024 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

Wrongful death action was not timely filed when plaintiff petitioned to be appointed as special administratrix of the estate within the two-year filing period of the Wrongful Death Act, but the petition was not granted until after that period elapsed.

In re N.E., No. 23A-JC-996, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 31, 2024).

February 5, 2024 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

A litigant’s failure to appear at a hearing should be addressed using the indirect contempt procedure which requires a rule to show cause and a hearing. The trial court erred by relying upon information obtained from the drug testing facility by its court reporter without her testimony under oath.

Russell v. Russell, No. 23A-DC-578, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Nov. 22, 2023).

November 27, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, E. Tavitas

“Joint physical custody” means equal parenting time; while that might not require a perfectly equal 50% – 50% split of parenting time, granting Father 55.5% of parenting time and Mother 44.5% of parenting time is inconsistent with “joint physical custody.”

  • « 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 15
  • 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