• 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

Blair v. EMC Mortgage, LLC., No. 19S-MF-530, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2020).

February 24, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

“Indiana’s two applicable statutes of limitations recognize three events triggering the accrual of a cause of action for payment upon a promissory note containing an optional acceleration clause. First, a lender can sue for a missed payment within six years of a borrower’s default. Second, a lender can exercise its option to accelerate and fast-forward to the note’s maturity date, rendering the full balance immediately due. The lender must then bring a cause of action within six years of that acceleration date. Or, third, a lender can opt not to accelerate and sue for the entire amount owed within six years of the note’s date of maturity.”

Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Alialy, No. 19S-CC-531, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 17, 2020).

February 24, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Lender could recover equally under Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-118 and Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9 because it filed suit within six years of acceleration.

In re M.S., No. 19S-JC-50, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 20, 2020).

February 24, 2020 Filed Under: Juvenile Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

In a CHINS case, unlike the sixty-day deadline imposed by Ind. Code § 31-34-11-1(a) that may be waived by consent of the parties, the 120-day deadline contemplated by Ind. Code 31-34-11-1(b) may be enlarged only if a party shows good cause for a continuance.

S.H. v. D.W., No. 19S-PO-118, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 31, 2020).

February 3, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: C. Goff, G. Slaughter, Supreme

The Protection Order Act does not permit the reissuance, renewal, or extension of the protective order when there has been a single episode of physical violence with no follow-up act, no threat that the violence will recur, and no other reasonable grounds to believe there is present intent to harm.

In re Adoption of C.A.H., No. 20S-AD-5, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 10, 2020).

January 13, 2020 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

A parent’s implied consent to the adoption may not be based solely on their failure to appear at a single hearing.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 43
  • Go to page 44
  • Go to page 45
  • Go to page 46
  • Go to page 47
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 173
  • 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