 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beck v. City of Evansville, No. 82A04-0505-CV-248,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A city was immune from liability for nuisance and negligence under Ind. Code § 34-13-3-1(7) arising from the flooding of residences because it was performing a discretionary function when it commissioned and adopted a storm water plan.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. State, No. 45A03-0504-CR-156,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to neglect of a dependent under Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4, he was unable to challenge the appropriateness of his sentence under Ind. R. App. P. 7(B) because of a plea agreement, but, since the trial court exercised discretion under a sentencing cap, he could challenge the finding and weighing of aggravating circumstances.
|
|||||
| Faris v. AC & S, Inc., No. 49A02-0506-CV-494,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed a dismissal of complaint after it was amended to claims by a personal representative because the personal representative was not appointed until after the statute of limitations in Ind. Code § 34-11-7-1 had run.
|
|||||
| McCorkle v. AC & S, Inc., No. 49A02-0506-CV-493,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since widow was appointed personal representative within 11 months of her husband's death, she obtained the appropriate legal status to continue his asbestos lawsuit well within the 18-month limitations period of Ind. Code § 34-11-7-1, and her request to amend her complaint related back to that date of appointment.
|
|||||
| Mueller v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., No. 93A02-0510-EX-931,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation board properly denied surviving spouse's claim against corporation for workers' compensation benefits allegedly owed due to death of her husband who was struck and killed by a car as he walked towards plant where he worked; husband's fatal injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with the corporation.
|
|||||
| Quaker Props. v. Dep't of Unsafe Bldgs., No. 15A01-0508-CV-347,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a dispute involving a building in an impaired condition, trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an owner because it was not filed within 10 days, as required by Ind. Code § 36-7-9-8; moreover, where more than 30 days elapsed between the filing of a statement of costs and a decision, judgment was properly entered for a city.
|
|||||
| Trimble v. State, No. 40S01-0602-CR-64,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 21, 2006, Decided , February 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State supreme court affirmed a trial court judgment convicting defendant of abandonment/neglect of an animal and harboring a non-immunized dog because the search of the doghouse in an open area of defendant's property did not violate U.S. Const. amend. IV or Ind. Const. art. I, § 11.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
