• 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

N. Vaidik

Kalwitz v. Kalwitz, No. 46A03-0912-CV-574, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 20, 2010)

September 28, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

As all small claims defenses are deemed at issue without a responsive pleading, a litigant wanting an “automatic” small claims change of judge must request it within 30 days of the date the case is placed on the CCS as having been filed.

Regalado v. Eastate of Regalado, No. 64A05-0911-CV-672, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 27, 2010)

September 3, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Indiana Code section 29-1-2-7(b), which governs paternal inheritance to, through, and from a child born out of wedlock, requires a child to show she is a child born out of wedlock; because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the child in this case was a child born out of wedlock, trial court erred in granting summary judgment in the child’s favor.

Walker v. State, No. 71A03-1003-CR-115, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 17, 2010)

August 20, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

“Continuing crime doctrine” did not apply to distinct crimes.

Paloutzian v. Taggart, No. 49A02-0908-CV-817, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 13, 2010)

August 16, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik, T. Crone

The 2003 amendment to Ind. Code § 30-4-2.1-2, which abrogated the stranger to the adoption rule, applies retroactively to a trust created in 1953 before the settlor’s son adopted two children.

Vest v. State, No. 49A02-0912-CR-1276, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 21, 2010)

July 23, 2010 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, N. Vaidik

Resisting efforts of several police officers to make an arrest was a single offense, not three, of resisting law enforcement, so that there was no need for a “unanimity” instruction requiring jurors to agree that a particular officer’s efforts were resisted.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 38
  • Go to page 39
  • Go to page 40
  • Go to page 41
  • Go to page 42
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 46
  • 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