• 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

L. Rush

Clifton v. McCammack, No. 49S02-1504-CT-228, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 21, 2015).

September 21, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Father of victim of an accident cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, because none of the three circumstantial factors were met; the claimant must demonstrate that the scene viewed was essentially as it was at the time of the incident, that the victim was in essentially the same condition as immediately following the incident, and that the claimant was not informed of the incident before coming upon the scene.

Boyer v. Smith, No. 15S01-1509-CT-526, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 10, 2015).

September 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over an attorney that never practiced law in Indiana and did not seek business from Indiana residents – she had no minimum contacts within or substantial connection to Indiana.

JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Claybridge Homeowners Assoc., Inc., No. 29S02-1504-MF-188, ,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 27, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Motion to Intervene was properly denied because the party had constructive notice of foreclosure by way of a valid lis pendens notice.

In Re Visitation of L-A.D.W., No. 82S01-1507-DR-452, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 30, 2015).

July 31, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, S. David, Supreme

“Given the uniqueness that pervades different family units, strict standards on the amount of permissible visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act would be difficult to craft. As such, trial courts should be able to consider the various circumstances presented in each individual case to determine what is in the child’s best interest.”

Satterfield v. State, No. 63S00-1401-LW-306, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. June 26, 2015).

July 2, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Court did not abuse its discretion in admitting officer’s lay-witness testimony that an allegedly mentally ill defendant was “evasive” during police questioning.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 18
  • Go to page 19
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 27
  • 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