 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Leeper Elec. Servs. v. City of Carmel, No. 30A05-0509-CV-556,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an owner's proffered amended complaint contained claims that had already been finally adjudicated, and because the owner never brought an inverse condemnation claim against the city regarding its refusal to rezone its property, the owner's 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action was premature.
|
|||||
| Rhines v. Norlarco Credit Union, No. 25A03-0506-CV-275,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, May 15, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Secured creditor filed suit in state court seeking money judgment and replevin of a vehicle. As debtor did not assert counterclaim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692 et seq., but was pursuing his FDCPA rights in federal court, he was not entitled to a hearing in state court concerning alleged violations of FDCPA.
|
|||||
| Shepard v. Schurz Communs., Inc., No. 55A04-0508-CV-479,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 15, 2006, Decided , May 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted to newspaper pursuant to Indiana's strategic lawsuit against public participation statute since undisputed evidence showed that the newspaper acted without malice in printing assertion by official that attorney was liar. The newspaper merely reported a statement that was incapable of being proved true or false.
|
|||||
| Potter v. Houston, No. 53A05-0506-CV-359,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In plaintiff's appeal from an order about an easement, defendant was awarded appellate attorney fees under Ind. R. App. P. 66(E) and Ind. Code Ann. § 34-52-1-1. Plaintiff had failed to comply with Ind. R. App. P. 46 and 50; he had ignored the import of trial court orders, and his motions were calculated to cause defendant to expend time and money.
|
|||||
| DePuy, Inc. v. Farmer, No. 93S02-0503-EX-97,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A settlement reached before worker's compensation benefits were resolved did not bar the injured employee from pursuing worker's compensation for that injury, but if worker's compensation benefits were awarded, the employer was entitled to subrogation rights to prevent double recovery.
|
|||||
| In re Corizzi, Case No. 49S00-0603-DI-104,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney had been disbarred in the District of Columbia and in Virginia and had failed to demonstrate under Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(28)(c) why reciprocal discipline should not issue in Indiana, he was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana.
|
|||||
| In re Harris, Case No. 45S00-0603-DI-102,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 17, 2006, Decided , May 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not inform a client for over three years that a personal injury case had been dismissed, the attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a), (b), and 8.4(c); consequently, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days with automatic reinstatement thereafter.
|
|||||
| Payton v. Payton, No. 10A04-0512-CV-704,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's child support modification order was fatally flawed. Indiana Child Support Guidelines required both parents to complete and sign child support worksheet verifying parents' incomes. Mother's income evidence was unsworn and unverified. Neither parent offered signed worksheet. Court did not enter findings or complete its own worksheet.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
