 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ace Foster Care & Pediatric Home Nursing Agency Corp. v. Ind. Family & Soc. Servs. Admin., No. 45A03-0605-CV-202,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 1, 2007, Decided , May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, because Ind. Code § 4-13-2-14.2(a) unambiguously required that a contract with the State of Indiana be in writing, there was no merit to plaintiff's arguments that various conversations and practices created a material issue of fact as to whether there had been a contract.
|
|||||
| Allen v. State, No. 41A05-0609-CR-477,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 1, 2007, Decided , May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to file belated notice of appeal and/or belated motion to correct errors after he entered a fixed guilty plea to murder and related felonies in return for a 192-year sentence; his plea of guilty foreclosed any direct appeal and trial court properly advised him of options he had to seek relief.
|
|||||
| Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs., Ltd., No. 32S05-0604-CV-00151,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 1, 2007, Decided , May 1, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied power companies' partial summary judgment motion on insurance company's claim that it was not obligated to pay defense costs the power companies had incurred in a federal lawsuit; that lawsuit was to force them to install equipment preventing future pollution and was not about a covered occurrence, accident, or event.
|
|||||
| Charter One Mortg. Corp. v. Condra, No. 49S05-0612-CV-497,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 2, 2007, Decided , May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no unauthorized practice of law when form mortgage documents were prepared by lender's employees who were non-attorneys because directing or acting on matters of general knowledge, even if knowledge of rule of law, was not practice of law. Mere charging of fee did not transform permissible conduct into unauthorized practice of law.
|
|||||
| City of Carmel v. Steele, No. 29S02-0604-CV-139,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 2, 2007, Decided , May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a voluntary annexation under Ind. Code § 36-4-3-5.1 was challenged, the trial court erred in considering whether the territory described in the annexation petition was contiguous to a city's borders. Under Ind. Code § 36-4-3-15.5, the issue was whether the territory as described in the annexation ordinance was contiguous to the city's borders.
|
|||||
| Inland Steel Co. v. Pavlinac, No. 93A02-0608-EX-664,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 2, 2007, Decided , May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ten percent was added to a workers' compensation award under Ind. Code Ann. § 22-3-4-8(f) because the employer's arguments were disingenuous or trivial. The claimant was denied damages under Ind. R. App. P. 66, however, as there was no allegation that the arguments were deliberately presented so as to delay the claimant's receipt of benefits.
|
|||||
| Kelley v. Tanoos, No. 84S01-0605-CV-195,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 2, 2007, Decided , May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied alleged assailant's summary judgment motion and properly granted school superintendent's summary judgment motion on the alleged assailant's defamation action against the school superintendent; school superintendent's accusatory statements to private citizen about who shot at him were protected by qualified privilege.
|
|||||
| McElroy v. State, No. 49S02-0605-CR-174,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 2, 2007, Decided , May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed was not improper because, although the trial court erred in finding that there was "great" risk that defendant would have committed another crime, and criminal history was not a valid aggravator, error was harmless. In the oral sentencing order and the later written statement, defendant received precisely the same sentence.
|
|||||
| Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., No. 02S04-0608-CV-292,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 2, 2007, Decided , May 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for student in claim arising from student's attempted intubation of patient was proper because student was not obligated to obtain consent herself or inquire into consent obtained by doctors. Patient failed to show that student intended harmful contact, so student's harmful touching of patient did not rise to level of battery.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
