 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| In re Mocek, Case No. 49S00-0303-DI-131,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney who failed, over a period of many months, to cooperate in any way with disciplinary investigation was subject to indefinite suspension under Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(10)(f)(4), which meant he could not be reinstated unless he successfully petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for readmittance.
|
|||||
| In re Moyer, Case No. 12S00-0507-DI-329,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's acceptance of responsibility for violations of Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a), 1.4(b), and 8.4(c) and agreement with disciplinary commission regarding sanction prompted court to impose two-month suspension with automatic reinstatement.
|
|||||
| Lee v. Hamilton, No. 64A05-0504-CV-187,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Illegible medical records were properly excluded from evidence. Original complaint was not admissible for impeachment purposes because of its potential to mislead the jury. Trial court's failure to give two instructions tendered by second driver was not error because one was not applicable and substance of second as covered by other instructions.
|
|||||
| Orthodontic Affiliates, P.C. v. Long, No. 46A04-0503-CV-147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employment contract was terminated, not breached, where a provision of contract was not ambiguous and created the ability for the employee to terminate the agreement by simply refusing to work. Accordingly, the employee's letter expressing his refusal to work for the employer past a certain date resulted in termination of the contract.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Estate of Mitchell, No. 54A01-0508-CV-359,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the estate, as the will contestant did not file a proper complaint with named defendants or tender a proper summons within the three-month statutory period set forth in Ind. Code § 29-1-7-17; thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, the will contest.
|
|||||
| Villas West II v. McGlothin, No. 34A02-0504-CV-370,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 30, 2006, Decided , January 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A condominium association's restrictive covenant against leasing a unit owner's residence violated the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 3601-3619 since the effect of the restriction had a disparate impact upon African American unit owners and the unit owner showed that less discriminatory alternatives existed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
