• 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

M. Robb

In re Paternity of J.W., No. 76A04-1610-JP-2476, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 7, 2017).

July 10, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Robb, N. Vaidik

Trial court infringed upon the custodial rights of parent by delegating decision-making as to child’s need for therapy to a service provider.

Daviess-Martin County Join Parks and Recreation Dept. v. Estate of Abel, No. 19A04-1607-CT-1563, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 19, 2017).

June 19, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Barnes, M. Robb

Using the Rogers/Goodwin analysis, looking at the “broad type of plaintiff” and “broad type of harm” the lake owner/operator had no duty to a swimmer who contracted a rare infection from the lake because a reasonable person would not recognize the duty and agree that one exists.

Jenner v. Bloomington Cellular Services, Inc., No. 53A05-1606-MI-1415, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 12, 2017).

June 12, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Bailey, M. Robb, N. Vaidik

Tax sale purchasers must provide notice to any person with a substantial, publicly recorded interest even if their interest lies outside the chain of title. “Requiring a tax-sale purchaser to search outside the chain of title—even if it means searching thousands of records in the county recorder’s office—is one of the safeguards created by the statute.”

Taylor v. State, No. 32A05-1608-CR-1720, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 17, 2017).

January 23, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb

Evidence obtained via a valid search warrant is admissible even though the arresting officer only had an electronic copy at the time of the search.

Dermatology Assoc., P.C. v. White, No. 49A02-1512-PL-2189, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App, Jan. 19, 2016).

January 23, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, M. Robb, P. Mathias

To trigger the 180-day statute of limitations extension for a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that she has subsequently acquired knowledge of or received information about something she did not previously know with regard to her injury and $15,000 is insufficient to compensate her for that more serious injury.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 8
  • Go to page 9
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • 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