• 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

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.

Miller v. State, No. 22S-CR-59, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 29, 2022).

July 5, 2022 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, M. Massa, Supreme

A party invites an error if it was part of a deliberate, well-informed trial strategy, which means there must be evidence of counsel’s strategic maneuvering at trial to establish invited error. As to juror challenges, an anticipated refusal does not excuse compliance with the exhaustion rule; a party must still try to use a peremptory challenge even if he believes it will be unsuccessful.

Holcomb v. Bray, No. 21S-PL-518, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 3, 2022).

June 6, 2022 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

The Governor is not procedurally barred from seeking declaratory relief on the constitutionality of HEA-1123; the Court holds HEA-1123 is unconstitutional.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to page 5
  • Go to page 6
  • Go to page 7
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 28
  • 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