• 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

Gertiser v. Stokes, No. 29S02-1511-DR-643, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Nov. 10, 2015).

November 16, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Revoking spousal maintenance requires proof “not merely that the maintenance award had become unreasonably excessive, but its very existence had become unreasonable.”

Lee v. State, No. 49S02-1511-CR-638, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Nov. 5, 2015).

November 9, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Charging information for conspiracy to commit murder by shooting the victim did not give defendant fair notice of lesser-included battery offenses based on beating the victim.

Williams v. State, No. 48S05-1507-CR-424, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Oct. 26, 2015).

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

Officer’s testimony that “there’s zero doubt in my mind that this was a transaction for cocaine” was an opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt in violation of Ind. Evidence Rule 704(b), but was harmless error.

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.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 20
  • Go to page 21
  • Go to page 22
  • Go to page 23
  • Go to page 24
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 30
  • 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