• 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

Clifton v. McCammack, No. 49S02-1504-CT-228, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 21, 2015).

September 21, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Father of victim of an accident cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress, because none of the three circumstantial factors were met; the claimant must demonstrate that the scene viewed was essentially as it was at the time of the incident, that the victim was in essentially the same condition as immediately following the incident, and that the claimant was not informed of the incident before coming upon the scene.

Boyer v. Smith, No. 15S01-1509-CT-526, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 10, 2015).

September 14, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: L. Rush, Supreme

Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over an attorney that never practiced law in Indiana and did not seek business from Indiana residents – she had no minimum contacts within or substantial connection to Indiana.

Gibson v. State, No. 39S05-1509-CR-517, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 31, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Pulling the victim to the ground during the course of a battery was insufficient to establish D-felony criminal confinement by removal under I.C. § 35-42-3-3(a)(2).

Anderson v. Gaudin, No. 07S01-1505-PL-284, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 1, 2015).

September 4, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: B. Dickson, R. Rucker, S. David, Supreme

“[U]nder the Home Rule Act, boards of county commissioners are authorized to amend a fire protection district, even if such amendment dissolves the district.”

Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp., No. 64S04-1504-MF-187, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Aug. 21, 2015).

August 28, 2015 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: S. David, Supreme

Affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside the default judgment under T.R. 60(B)(1) for excusable neglect, but remands to the trial court to reconsider whether equitable reasons support granting the motion under T.R. 60(B)(8).

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 93
  • Go to page 94
  • Go to page 95
  • Go to page 96
  • Go to page 97
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 176
  • 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 © 2026 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs