• 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

Hayko v. State, No. 23S-CR-13, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 22, 2023).

June 26, 2023 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

To lay a proper foundation for the admission of opinion testimony under Evidence Rule 608(a), the proponent must establish that the witness’s opinion is both rationally based on their personal knowledge and would be helpful to the trier of fact.

S.D. v. G.D., No. 23S-PO-89, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 26, 2023).

June 26, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Protective order petitioner has a burden of showing that “domestic or family violence has occurred” and that respondent “represents a credible threat to the safety” of the petitioner or petitioner’s child. Trial courts need only determine whether the petitioner has made the requisite showings by a preponderance of the evidence.

US Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exchange, No. 22S-CT-264, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 6, 2023).

March 13, 2023 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, L. Rush, Supreme

The absence of contractual privity between the contractor and other commercial tenants precludes them from recovery because the contractor’s allegedly negligent work posed a risk to only property and the commercial tenants suffered only property damage.

In re Civil Commitment of B.N., No. 22S-MH-408, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 16, 2022).

December 19, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

When a party objects to a hearing being held remotely, good cause for proceeding remotely over the objection requires particularized and specific factual support. Mere mention of “the COVID-19 pandemic” was insufficient.

Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Finnerty, No. 21S-CT-409, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 19, 2022).

July 25, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

A trial court’s order on a repetitive motion or a motion to reconsider is an “other interlocutory order” under App. Rule 14(B).

The Court also creates a legal framework for determining whether good cause exists to limit or prohibit the deposition of a high-ranking official.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • 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