 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cantrell v. Morris, No. 94S00-0505-CQ-243,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 21, 2006, Decided , June 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A public defender who was fired by a judge for having supported her opponent's candidacy had no private right of action under Ind. Const. art. I, § 9, because he had a claim under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, which made it unnecessary to consider a suit under the Constitution.
|
|||||
| Miami Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Nance, No. 06A01-0512-CV-552,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 21, 2006, Decided , June 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the property owners, as matter pending in a different county was not substantially similar to complaint that the property owners filed in the forum county and the trial court properly found that the mining company's failure to perform its lease obligations was not the result of force majeure.
|
|||||
| Press-A-Dent, Inc. v. Weigel, No. 02A03-0504-CV-195,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, June 21, 2006, Decided , June 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a company failed to establish that it had any legally protectible interest in its business following an independent contractor's alleged breach of covenants set forth in an agreement with the contractor's employer, the breach of contract action was properly found in favor of the contractor.
|
|||||
| S.E. Johnson Cos. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 90A05-0512-CV-738,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 21, 2006, Decided , June 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a contractor's employee did not know depth at which a natural gas pipe was buried and did not keep proper clearance between his saw blade and pipe, as required by Ind. Code §§ 8-1-26-14 and -20, and as he was performing "excavation work" under Ind. Code § 8-1-26-6, contractor was liable to utility under Ind. Code § 8-1-26-22 for damage to pipe.
|
|||||
| Samuels v. State, No. 25A05-0512-PC-710,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 21, 2006, Decided , June 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's appeal of the postconviction court's denial of the inmate's petition for educational credit time was dismissed because the court was without jurisdiction to hear the matter under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 1, § (1)(a) as the inmate failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Indiana Department of Correction.
|
|||||
| Scuro v. State, No. 49A02-0505-CR-440,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, June 21, 2006, Decided , June 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3 was conduct-rather than result-oriented, defendant could not be convicted of more than one count of dissemination of matter harmful to minors based on one occurrence, even if there was more than one victim.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
