|
| |
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.
|
| |
State Courts -
Indiana - April 11, 2006
|
| |
|
| |
Dylak v. State, No. 43A04-0503-CR-150,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 11, 2006, Decided , April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: As defendant, a truck driver, violated rules to prevent fatigued drivers from entering the roadways, prior to running a red light and killing another driver, the jury could have found that defendant substantially deviated from acceptable driving standards. Thus, probative evidence existed to support his conviction under Ind. Code § 35-42-1-5.
|
|
| |
Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, No. 20A03-0506-CV-293,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, April 11, 2006, Decided , April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Since there was no evidence that a manufacturer had knowledge of an injured person's particular characteristics or that a dealership was an agent of the manufacturer, the manufacturer could not be held liable under Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2 for failing to act on knowledge not held in regard to injuries resulting from an airbag.
|
|
| |
Hite v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Children, No. 82A05-0509-JV-541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, April 11, 2006, Decided , April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: A father's parental rights were properly terminated because the failure to provide him notice of an initial child-in-need-of-services (CHINS) petition did not violate his due process rights under the 14th Amendment, since he was not denied the opportunity to be heard in the latter portions of the CHINS action and in the termination proceedings.
|
|
| |
Lawson v. State, No. 46A05-0511-CV-636,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, April 11, 2006, Decided , April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: Although parolee claimed he was entitled to release because parole board did not hold a revocation hearing within 60 days of his sentencing as required by Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10, he was not confined due solely to an alleged parole violation because he had been ordered to serve prison terms for his theft and resisting law enforcement convictions.
|
|
| |
M.C. Welding & Machining Co. v. Kotwa, No. 46A04-0508-CV-457,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 11, 2006, Decided , April 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free
|
Overview: When an employee sued an employer for discrimination and retaliatory discharge for seeking unemployment benefits, the retaliation claim sustained a general verdict for him even if the trial court had no discrimination jurisdiction, and the evidence showed denial of a right of employment when he was not allowed to return to his job after a layoff.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|