 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cummins v. McIntosh, No. 49A04-0506-CV-331,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 24, 2006, Decided , April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of doctor based on release of intramedullary nail manufacturer in prior litigation by a patient. Whether doctor was considered a successive or joint tortfeasor, issues of fact as to the intent, scope and effect of the release in the prior litigation precluded summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Forler v. State, No. 65A01-0509-CR-408,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, April 24, 2006, Decided , April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In prosecution for possession of methamphetamine chemical reagents or precursors, starting fluid label was properly admitted under Ind. R. Evid. 803(17) to prove can contained ether, as manufacturer would be unlikely to falsely state its product contained a hazardous substance, and consumers could not readily replace contents of aerosol-type cans.
|
|||||
| McCutchan v. Blanck, No. 32A01-0512-CV-577,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, April 24, 2006, Decided , April 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statements in affidavits supporting property buyers' brief opposing summary judgment did not satisfy Ind. R. Trial P. 56(E) and were properly struck; expert's opinions lacked sufficient support to satisfy Ind. R. Evid. 702; lay witness's speculative statements were inadmissible under Ind. R. Evid. 701; seller was properly granted summary judgment.
|
|||||
| Biddinger v. State, No. 49A05-0504-CR-234,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, April 25, 2006, Decided , April 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Error in not allowing defendant to make statement of allocution was harmless as full statement contained no additional information that would have affected sentence. Sentence was not vacated despite improper consideration of aggravating factor, type of weapon, and failure to consider mitigating circumstance, PTSD, as plea agreement was binding.
|
|||||
| KeyBank N.A. v. Shipley, No. 02A03-0509-CV-440,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, April 26, 2006, Decided , April 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to an attorney as to a bank's negligence claims as the attorney did not owe the bank any duty as the attorney of the receiver of a dissolved corporation and thus could not be held liable for negligence.
|
|||||
| Meyers v. Meyers, No. 29A04-0412-CV-638,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a former employee's retaliatory discharge claim was based on a violation of public policy, as Ind. Code § 22-2-2-11(b) imposed sanctions where an employer violated Ind. Code § 22-2-2-4, which required the employer to compensate the employee for overtime, the claim should not have been dismissed under Ind. R. Trial P. 12(B)(6).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
