 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Giles v. Brown County, No. 03S01-0605-CV-175,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 25, 2007, Decided, June 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because, in both the case of a conventional 911 service and a wireless one, statutory immunity from liability was a reasonable and rational way for the Legislature to have furthered its legitimate interest in better emergency communication systems, the estates claim that Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(19) violated equal protection principles was rejected.
|
|||||
| Hendricks County Bd. of Comm'rs v. Reith-Riley Constr. Co., No. 32A05-0610-CV-585,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 25, 2007, Decided, June 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly declared county zoning ordinance was invalid and illegal, as ordinance's additional development requirements were not sufficiently definite as they had to be under Local Planning and Zoning Enabling Act, and properly issued a writ of mandamus to the Area Plan Commission that the county commissioners lacked standing to appeal.
|
|||||
| Liberty Publ'g, Inc. v. Carter, No. 49A02-0606-CV-502,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 25, 2007, Decided, June 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly enforced Civil Investigation Demand (CID) against companies because requirements of Ind. Code § 4-6-3-4, which Attorney General of Indiana met, plus complaints constituted reasonable grounds for AG to issue CID to first company and to show that demand was proper for second company to investigate whether they violated law.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
