 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Afolabi v. Atl. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., No. 49A02-0603-CV-162,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where note holder's predecessor's foreclosure action was dismissed under Ind. R. Trial P. 41(E) and where debtor continued to fail to make payments under note after its assignment to note holder, claim preclusion did not bar note holder's foreclosure action since debtor's continuing failure to make payments created new cause of action.
|
|||||
| Alpha PSI Chptr. v. Auditor of Monroe County, No. 53S00-0508-CV-384,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: 2003 Ind. Acts 256, § 44, which extended filing deadlines for three college fraternities, violated Ind. Const. art. IV, § 23. The act was special in that it applied only to fraternities at a certain university that had failed to file tax exemption forms for two specific years, and the taxpayers' oversight did not justify special treatment.
|
|||||
| Brown v. Brown, No. 48S04-0509-CV-404,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lump-sum payment of Social Security disability benefits made to a son entitled the father to a credit against his child support arrearage, any excess was deemed a gratuity, and while the filing of the claim entitled the father to a retroactive credit, it did not relieve him of support under Ind. Code § 31-16-16-6 (2004) absent a modification.
|
|||||
| David A. Ryker Painting Co. v. Nunamaker, No. 49S05-0509-CV-399,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the employer learned that the employee was due an additional wage payment and where it made that payment within 14 days, the employee was not entitled to liquidated damages or attorney fees under Ind. Code § 22-2-5-2, as the employer paid the employee the amount due within the semimonthly or biweekly time limit of Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1.
|
|||||
| Garrison v. Metcalf, No. 10S01-0510-CV-455,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a defendant's motion to correct error was deemed denied on the 30th day following a hearing, and because the injured plaintiff did not file a notice of appeal, the holding of Cavinder was not available; therefore, pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 53.3(A), plaintiff's motion was deemed denied.
|
|||||
| Hubbard v. State, No. 20A03-0509-CR-409,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Off-duty civilian employee of a work-release center was a "service provider" under Ind. Code § 35-44-1-5(a), an inmate on an 8-hour pass was subject to lawful detention, prosecution for consensual sex did not violate the employee's due process or liberty interest protections, and as applied to the employee the statute was not unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Kellems v. State, No. 62S05-0501-CR-15,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Absent a signed waiver of a jury trial or a colloquy in open court, a waiver by counsel was inadequate under Ind. Const. art. 1, § 13 and Ind. Code § 35-37-1-2, even where defendant had been advised of his right at earlier proceedings and counsel had stated that defendant wished to waive his right in a status conference in defendant's presence.
|
|||||
| Lee v. State, No. 45S05-0510-CR-454,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fourth Amendment was not violated by warrantless search and seizure of videotapes as fiancee, who shared house with defendant, had ability to consent to search; defendant took no steps to protect tapes from examination by fiancee, thereby allowing fiancee access even if access had not previously been exercised by the act of watching the tapes.
|
|||||
| Montgomery v. Bd. of Trs., No. 79S05-0508-CV-354,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 29, 2006, Decided , June 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The university, a state agency, was subject to the federal ADEA and, therefore, was not an "employer" subject to § 1 of the Indiana Age Discrimination Act (IADA); the employee's suit under the IADA also failed because the IADA did not expressly authorize aggrieved employees to bring civil actions for monetary damages against their employers.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
