 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Owen County v. Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., No. 93A02-0607-EX-562,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 1, 2007, Decided , March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ind. R. App. P. 9 conflicted with Ind. Code § 22-4-17-12 with regard to the number of days given to perfect an appeal, and because the rule took precedence over a conflicting statute, the rule rather than Ind. Code §§ 22-4-17-11 and 22-4-17-12 governed appeals from the Unemployment Insurance Review Board.
|
|||||
| Penn Harris Madison Sch. Corp. v. Howard, No. 71S05-0511-CV-509,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 1, 2007, Decided , March 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which student and his mother sued public school corporation for negligence, error in instructing jury that the law charged student with exercising the standard of care of a person of like age was harmless, where school corporation did not establish a reasonable probability that its substantial rights were adversely affected.
|
|||||
| Wells v. Shiflet, CAUSE NO. 53A04-0702-CV-80,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was not entitled to discretionary interlocutory review under Ind. R. App. P. 14(B) of an order that granted second appellees' motion to reconsider and a summary judgment in their favor on appellant's defamation and IIED claims because the order's language indicated it was a final order appealable as of right under Ind. R. Trial P. 56(c).
|
|||||
| Hartley v. Hartley, No. 48A04-0603-CV-147,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 5, 2007, Decided , March 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dividing the marital estate between the husband and wife after assets in education trust fund created for minor children were set aside; Ind. Code § 31-16-6-3 did not limit trial court to only setting aside such funds specifically included in the child support order and trial court had the power to establish that fund.
|
|||||
| Perez v. Bakel, No. 82A01-0604-CV-144,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 6, 2007, Decided , March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiff offered to settle a medical malpractice suit for $250,000, and the judgment against defendant was capped at $100,000 under Ind. Code § 34-18-14-3, it was error to award prejudgment interest. Though the verdict was for over $940,000, under Ind. Code § 34-51-4-6 the judgment determined whether prejudgment interest could be awarded.
|
|||||
| Perrine v. Marion County Office of Child Servs., No. 49A02-0608-JV-657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 6, 2007, Decided , March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was insufficient to support a determination that a child was a child in need of services under Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1. A single use of methamphetamine outside of the child's presence did not support such a determination, and authorities had prevented the mother from arranging for care for the child at the time of the mother's arrest.
|
|||||
| Porter County Sheriff Dep't v. Guzorek, No. 46S03-0606-CV-207,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 6, 2007, Decided , March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 15(C)(2), a husband's and wife's amended complaint adding the sheriff department as a defendant in a personal injury suit related back to their original complaint against the sheriff deputy as the timely complaint suing the immune deputy rather than the department qualified as a mistake of identity.
|
|||||
| Ronco v. State, No. 64S05-0604-CR-152,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 6, 2007, Decided , March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction resisting law enforcement was affirmed, because the trial court's action in issuing additional instruction to the jury was proper under Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6, as the jury submitted a specific question of law to the trial court, and Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6 required the trial court to respond.
|
|||||
| Agilera v. State, No. 49A02-0604-CR-355,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 7, 2007, Decided , March 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child's statements to others were admissible because they were not testimonial or were testimonial but admissible because victim was competent to testify and made available for cross-examination. Evidence victim was lying on defendant with underwear down and defendant's penis exposed, satisfied touching element of Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
