 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fields, No. 45S05-0506-CV-291,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As trial court could have treated insurer's Ind. R. Trial P. 60(B) motion for relief from default as a request for reconsideration, and as the denial of a reconsideration motion, unlike the denial of a Rule 60 motion, would have been an interlocutory ruling not subject to immediate appeal, appellate court lacked jurisdiction over insurer's appeal.
|
|||||
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Keltner, No. 29A05-0508-CV-490,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly denied the insurer's Ind. R. Trial P. 24(A) motion to intervene in plaintiffs' negligence action against the insured party. While the insurer was concerned about a lump sum award of damages, part of which it was not required to pay, a supplemental proceeding would have offered the opportunity to fairly divide a lump sum.
|
|||||
| Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harvey, No. 83S01-0501-CV-00007,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court correctly denied summary judgment on an insurer's claimed application of the coverage exclusion on parents' wrongful death claims against their daughter's boyfriend as there was no evidence that the boyfriend intended the daughter's drowning, which did not preclude the assertion that her death was accidental.
|
|||||
| Keaton & Keaton v. Keaton, No. 02S03-0602-CV-67,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case involving two Indiana law firms with similar names, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to a Fort Wayne firm on a Rushville firm's trade name infringement claim, where the Rushville firm did not identify any injury it had suffered arising from alleged instances of confusion.
|
|||||
| Ledbetter v. Hunter, No. 49S02-0412-CV-501,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ind. Code § 34-18-7-1(b), which gave minor victims of malpractice less time to file claims than minor victims of other torts, did not violate Ind. Const. art. I, § 23, as classification of those entitled to legal disability by age and type of claim bore substantial relationship to legislative purpose of preventing reduction of health care services.
|
|||||
| Oshinski v. N. Ind. Commuter Transp. Dist., No. 45A03-0502-CV-58,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 22, 2006, Decided , February 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State agency was entitled to summary judgment in a FELA action brought by an employee who failed to comply with Ind. Code § 34-13-3-6, the notice provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA), Ind. Code ch. 34-13-3; FELA suits against the State filed in Indiana courts were properly limited by ITCA because FELA suits were tort actions.
|
|||||
| Ind. State Bd. of Educ. v. Brownsburg Cmty. Sch. Corp., No. 32A05-0506-CV-317,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 24, 2006, Decided , February 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court granted a request for a stay in an administrative appeal and set the matter for a preliminary hearing, its decision on the merits after that hearing was a denial of the due process guarantees of notice and an opportunity to be heard because no notice was given regarding the finality of the hearing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
