 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. Sand Creek, Inc., No. 29A02-0607-CV-607,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When two law firms that had represented the plaintiffs in a suit disputed how the attorneys' fee was to be allocated between them, it was error for the trial court to order one firm to post a bond to secure an attorney fee lien. Ind. R. Trial P. 64(A) and (B) did not apply because the firms were not parties to the action before the trial court.
|
|||||
| Alter v. State, No. 27A02-0602-CR-76,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in not granting defendant's motion for discharge under Ind. R. Crim. P. 4(C) when he had not been tried within a year of being charged. Nothing indicated that there was a delay chargeable to him, and no continuance had been sought or granted based on congestion or emergency; it appeared that the case had simply been neglected.
|
|||||
| Carr v. Pearman, No. 45A03-0507-CV-323,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Original attorney, who did not have a signed contingency fee agreement, was properly awarded judgment on his claim against the successor attorney because the original attorney stated a claim for quantum meruit, and he presented evidence of an implied agreement for payment by the client and evidence that was relevant to the value of his services.
|
|||||
| King v. Burns, No. 09A02-0610-CV-847,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nothing in Ind. Code § 3-13-1-15 expressly stated that a failure to strictly comply with it voided the result of an election. There were no practical consequences of the candidate's CAN-29 form having been filed with the county clerk rather than the election division, and an appellate court declined to overturn the results of a general election.
|
|||||
| McCalment v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 79A05-0506-CV-325,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of breach of written contract claim was upheld as employee handbook did not contain promise clear enough employee would reasonably believe offer of other than at will employment had been made. Promissory estoppel claim failed as employee did not allege that, even if he grieved first two disciplinary actions, Board would have reversed.
|
|||||
| Squibb v. State ex rel. Davis, No. 71A03-0605-CV-212,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 31, 2007, Decided , January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering a preliminary injunction under Ind. R. Trial P. 65(A) because the State of Indiana did not request that the trial court issue the injunction. However, the court acted properly in considering the evidence and in granting the State's motion for prejudgment attachment and garnishment.
|
|||||
| Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Davis, No. 89A05-0602-CV-104,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to grant summary judgment to defendants in a suit for damage caused by a water leak. The evidence suggested that the leak was caused by bumping, striking, or overtightening of a valve and that the leak began when a defendant had exclusive control over its filtration system; thus, an issue of fact existed as to res ipsa loquitur.
|
|||||
| Glenn v. Dow AgroSciences, LLC, No. 06A01-0607-CV-278,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 2, 2007, Decided , February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of preliminary injunction was reversed because restraint imposed by employment agreement's noncompetition article was overly broad in scope and went against public policy; among other things, broadly worded restriction made no distinction between past, current, or future customers, suppliers, or lessors and hurdle erected was insurmountable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
