• 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

P. Riley

Messmer v. KDK Financial Svcs., Inc., No. 53A01-1701-PL-139, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 14, 2017).

September 18, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

The continuing representation doctrine for statute of limitations is not applicable to financial advisers or fraud allegations.

State v. McKinney, No. 65A05-1611-CR-2624, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 9, 2017).

August 14, 2017 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Trial court abused its discretion in denying the State’s motions to exclude alleged child molester from victim’s deposition and for victim to testify via closed circuit television.

City of Fort Wayne v. Southwest Allen County Fire Protection District, No. 02A05-1612-PL-2883, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 10, 2017).

August 14, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

Trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over annexation issue. “Although annexation inevitably affects the allocation of tax revenue among units of government within the annexed area, it does not automatically follow that an action for a declaratory judgment with respect to an annexation statute arises under Indiana tax law and involves a dispute as to the interpretation of a tax law.”

In re Civil Commitment of M.L., No. 49A02-1612-MH-2823, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 27, 2017).

June 30, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, C. Bradford, P. Riley

A special condition of a mental health commitment must bear a relationship to treatment or protection of the public; special condition of no alcohol or drug use was struck because there was no record of this relationship.

Estate of Mills-McGoffney v. Vigo Co. Prosecutor, No. 84A01-1608-MI-1810, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 31, 2017).

June 5, 2017 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Appeals, P. Riley

When a motion for reinstatement of a dismissed case is filed beyond the thirty-day mark for filing an appeal, any subsequent appeal will pertain solely to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying or granting the motion to reinstate.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 10
  • Go to page 11
  • Go to page 12
  • Go to page 13
  • Go to page 14
  • 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 © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs