• 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

Ind. Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC, No. 20S-MI-62, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 27, 2020).

November 2, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Auditor gave adequate notice reasonably calculated to inform property owner of the impending tax sale of the property by first sending notice by first class and certified mail to the address listed on the deed for the property, and then publishing notice. The auditor was not required to search its internal records for a better tax sale notice address.

Watson v. State, 20A-CR-1142, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).

October 26, 2020 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

While Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to habitual-offender retrials, the constitutional right to a speedy trial does.

Brown v. Ind. Dept. of Environmental Management, No. 20S-MI-609, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2020).

October 26, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Vacates the portion of the Court of Appeals decision that makes the broad statement that law-of-the-case doctrine “is applicable only when an appellate court determines a legal issue, not a trial court.”

In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.R., No. 20S-JT-63, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 15, 2020).

October 19, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Drug test records are exceptions to the hearsay rule under the records of a regularly conducted business activity (Ind. Rule Evid. 803(6)).

Glover v. Allstate Property & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 20S-CT-23, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 8, 2020).

October 13, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: G. Slaughter, Supreme

Decedent was covered by insurance policy as a “resident relative” because she lived with her parents, and her parents did not need to notify insurance company of her status because she was not an “operator” living within their household. Additionally, the insurance policy’s anti-stacking provision did not limit an insured’s ability to recover under multiple UIM policies and that the policy’s offset provision reduces only the payments made on behalf of those persons directly liable for the injury.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 32
  • Go to page 33
  • Go to page 34
  • Go to page 35
  • Go to page 36
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 170
  • 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