 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ginther, No. 71A03-0508-CV-367,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an insurer's policy required it to pay compensatory damages for which its insured was legally liable and because post-judgment interest was part and parcel of plaintiffs' money judgment against the insured, the trial court properly ordered the insurer to pay plaintiffs post-judgment interest under Ind. Code § 24-4.6-1-101.
|
|||||
| Oliver v. State, No. 49A02-0504-PC-285,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 13, 2006, Decided , March 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petition of inmate who waited 10 years before seeking postconviction relief was barred by laches. He knew or could have learned of the existence of postconviction relief proceedings, but neglected to do so, and State was prejudiced by delay because it could not locate witnesses or victim, and officers it could locate could not remember the crime.
|
|||||
| Grange Ins. Co. v. Graham, No. 45A05-0505-CV-268,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 14, 2006, Decided , March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. Code Ann. § 27-7-5-4(b) (2005), occupants of vehicle involved in accident were not entitled to UIM coverage under a policy appellant issued to one of them, because the tortfeasor's liability insurance paid a per accident limit that was equal to the per accident limit of appellant's policy, under which all the occupants sought recovery.
|
|||||
| Orndorff v. New Albany Hous. Auth., No. 22A01-0508-CV-358,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 14, 2006, Decided , March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a housing authority's actual knowledge of a shooting of a resident by a nonresident did not satisfy the notice requirement of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, the trial court properly decided that plaintiffs had not substantially complied with the Act's notice requirements.
|
|||||
| Univ. of S. Ind. Found. v. Baker, No. 82S04-0510-CV-488,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 14, 2006, Decided , March 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trust devised "all personal property" to trustor's brother, that phrase was ambiguous in the context of trust instrument, since it appeared as a more general item at the end of a list of specific tangible items. Therefore, extrinsic evidence was admissible to show her intent, which was to leave most of her estate to a university.
|
|||||
| Gonser v. State, No. 44A05-0504-CR-210,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State failed to meet burden to show automobile exception to warrant requirement applied as there was not sufficient evidence of location of items seized. Search incident to arrest exception did not apply as search did not occur contemporaneously with arrest. Inventory exception did not apply as State failed to show decision to impound was routine.
|
|||||
| Precision Homes of Ind., Inc. v. Pickford, No. 45A03-0508-CV-355,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 15, 2006, Decided , March 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: That contractor altered statement required under Ind. Code § 32-27-3-12, concerning homeowners' remedies, by changing the word "lawsuit" in § 32-27-3-12 to "arbitration," and "court" to "arbitrator," was not fraud that voided arbitration clause; such a misstatement of law could not form basis of fraud, since everyone was presumed to know the law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
