 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Roller, No. 29A05-0511-CV-681,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's denial of summary judgment to general liability insurer in a declaratory judgment action was proper as genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the insured had given the insurer timely notice of the claims faulty workmanship on the part of the insured that were being made by the owners of a home the insured constructed.
|
|||||
| City of Crown Point v. Misty Woods Props., LLC, No. 45A03-0511-CV-560,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 18, 2007, Decided , April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a plan commission certified a proposal to rezone land to R-1 and R-2 and an applicant effectively amended its petition after a common council indicated that it would approve a zone change only to R-1, the council had the authority under Ind. Code § 36-7-4-608 to act on the amended ordinance without sending it back to the plan commission.
|
|||||
| Macarthur Drake & Assocs. v. Tower Crossing Assocs., No. 45A04-0509-CV-543,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 18, 2007, Decided , April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying tenant's motion to correct error, as tenant had proper notice of damages hearing and declined to appear at it; Ind. R. Trial P. 5 required attorney be served at his last known address and since tenant had left office that was subject of eviction proceeding, service of notice at attorney's residence was proper.
|
|||||
| Marks v. State, No. 02A04-0607-CR-392,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 18, 2007, Decided , April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated and related offenses were affirmed; trial court's instruction on "impairment" was harmless error as conviction was sustained by evidence that included fact defendant urinated on himself, and ex parte communication with jury during deliberations did not violate Ind. Code § 34-36-1-6.
|
|||||
| State v. Universal Outdoor, Inc., No. 49A05-0609-CV-536,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 18, 2007, Decided , April 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a condemnation action filed by the State against a billboard company, both parties' exceptions to the appraisers' report were timely under Ind. Code § 32-24-1-11, where the exceptions were filed within 20 days of the appraisers' report but no later than 20 days after the clerk sent notice of the report to the parties.
|
|||||
| Butterfield v. Constantine, No. 30A05-0609-CV-528,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 19, 2007, Decided , April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father waived right to appeal order in calculating his obligation for child's post-secondary education because he failed to produce worksheet or evidence, failed to object to mother's lack of worksheet, and tacitly agreed to proceed without verified worksheet. However, father was entitled to credit for Social Security disability benefits paid.
|
|||||
| Harmony Health Plan of Ind., Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of Admin., No. 49A02-0610-CV-846,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 19, 2007, Decided , April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of a motion to dismiss to the state agencies and the other bidders was affirmed because the disappointed bidder did not have property rights in a potential bid for a service contract from the state. The bidder was not an aggrieved party for relief under the state administrative procedure act and was not entitled to declaratory relief.
|
|||||
| MainSource Bank v. Hermann (In re Unsupervised Estate of Hermann), No. 16S05-0610-CV-351,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 19, 2007, Decided , April 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although equitable election doctrine did not apply, objection to closing statement should have been sustained because decedent intended that calculations of distributions under will should have been made by adding home value to residuary estate, dividing sum by two, and distributing to trust and representative one-half of remaining balance each.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
