 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cain v. Griffin, No. 61S01-0509-CV-422,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A customer who fell at the insureds' restaurant could bring a contract claim against the insurer as a third-party beneficiary of the policy but could not bring a tort claim against the insurer for failure to deal with her in good faith. She and the insurer did not have a "special relationship" that imposed such a duty on the insurer.
|
|||||
| Cavens v. Zaberdac, No. 45S03-0505-CV-239,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In medical malpractice case, grant of motion for judgment on evidence on issue of contributory negligence was upheld as alleged negligence of decedent did not constitute basis for defense of contributory negligence; doctor could not avoid responsibility by claiming decedent's negligence caused or contributed to condition necessitating treatment.
|
|||||
| Dewart v. Haab, No. 43A04-0508-CV-476,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the property owners paid and discharged all taxes due on a tract, and based on the requirements to quiet title for adverse possessors, together with the dearth of evidence regarding the alleged adverse owner's payment of taxes, a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that the alleged adverse owners complied with Ind. Code § 32-21-7-1.
|
|||||
| Dutchmen Mfg. v. Reynolds, No. 20S05-0506-CV-292,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A previous tenant's liability to a successor's employee for injuries caused by defective scaffolding it had installed and left in place for the successor's use did not depend on whether the scaffolding merged in the real estate when the lease ended because a supplier's liability for harm caused by a defective chattel was not affected by a merger.
|
|||||
| K.S. v. State, No. 49S04-0503-JV-00076,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Challenge by defendant juvenile to a dispositional order on the ground that the juvenile court did not approve the filing of the delinquency petition under Ind. Code § 31-37-10-2 was not jurisdictional because the juvenile court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction. It was untimely because he did not object at the time of his adjudication.
|
|||||
| Kozlowski v. Dordieski, No. 45S05-0606-CV-223,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2006, Decided , June 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because two cases brought by a neighbor against an owner had substantially the same parties, subject matter, and remedies sought, the circuit court properly refrained from exercising authority over the case when the case in the superior court had been filed first.
|
|||||
| Basham v. Penick, No. 10A01-0509-CV-432,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 23, 2006, Decided , June 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting alleged tortfeasor's Ind. R. Trial P. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings was error; Journey's Account Statute, Ind. Code § 34-11-8-1, saved claimant's action where she timely filed in Kentucky her first complaint, it was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and she refiled her case in Indiana beyond its limitations period.
|
|||||
| Eye v. Eye, No. 74A01-0509-CV-424,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 23, 2006, Decided , June 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's distribution of the parties' assets in a marital dissolution was reversed, and the case was remanded for a redetermination of the distribution because the trial court erred by dividing the marital assets in an unequal manner without giving clear consideration to all the relevant statutory requirements under Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5.
|
|||||
| Town of Cedar Lake Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Vellegas, No. 45A05-0507-CV-416,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 23, 2006, Decided , June 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a variance applicant failed to serve neighbors with notice of his petition for a writ of certiorari at the same time he filed his petition under Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1005, the trial court lacked jurisdiction. The neighbors, who had opposed the variance, were clearly adverse parties, and the notice given to them later did not satisfy the statute.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
