• 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

Supreme

Burke v. Bennett, No. 84S01-0904-CV-148, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 16, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, Supreme

Mayoral candidate’s allegation that his opponent was disqualified due to certain pre-election employment was inapplicable to establish ineligibility in a post-campaign election contest.

Spar v. Cha, No. 45S05-0906-CV-273, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., June 16, 2009)

June 24, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Supreme, T. Boehm

Incurred risk is not a defense to medical malpractice based on negligence or lack of informed consent; plaintiff’s consents to prior surgeries were admissible to counter her lack-of-informed-consent claim to the extent that claim was based on failure to inform her of typical risks in the procedure.

Meredith v. State, No. 89S04-0808-CR-430, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., May 28, 2009)

June 5, 2009 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, Supreme

Placement of a temporary license plate inside a vehicle’s back window is an infraction, justifying a traffic stop.

Stanley v. Walker, No. 41S01-0810-CV-539, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. May 27, 2009)

June 5, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, F. Sullivan, Supreme, T. Boehm

In a personal injury case where the amount of medical expenses actually paid by plaintiff was discounted from the amount originally billed because of arrangements between plaintiff’s health insurance company and medical providers, to the extent that discounted amount may be introduced without referencing insurance, it may be used to determine the reasonable value of medical services.

Estate of Margaret H. Prickett v. Womersley, No. 71S03-0808-CV-419, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., May 13, 2009)

May 22, 2009 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: F. Sullivan, Supreme

Indiana law presumes that services while caring for a person subject to a guardianship are rendered gratuitously if rendered by a family member; the presumption cannot be rebutted by evidence that the person wanted her daughter to be compensated because the person was under a guardianship, and the guardian did not consent.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 161
  • Go to page 162
  • Go to page 163
  • Go to page 164
  • Go to page 165
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 169
  • 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