 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Eakle, No. 49A04-0606-CV-345,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 17, 2007, Decided, July 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the amount of $ 500,000 paid to the injured persons by the driver who ran a red light was not less than, but equivalent to the UIM limits available to the injured persons for a multiple person accident in the amount of $ 500,000 under their policy, the driver's vehicle was not underinsured.
|
|||||
| Kacak v. Bank Calumet, N.A., No. 45A03-0612-CV-595,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 17, 2007, Decided, July 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A bank was entitled to summary judgment against a customer under Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1-4-214 for the amount of an overdraft resulting from a dishonored cashier's check deposited by the customer. A teller's alleged assurance to the customer that the check was "good" did not constitute a promise for purposes of promissory estoppel.
|
|||||
| Lopez v. State, No. 45A03-0609-CR-00411,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 17, 2007, Decided, July 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant's mental illness and lack of criminal history merited significant mitigating weight, because she killed both her children and there was long-standing precedent favoring imposition of the presumptive sentence under such circumstances, the imposition of the advisory 55-year sentences was not inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Ramos v. State, No. 49A04-0609-CR-482,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 17, 2007, Decided, July 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant challenged his sentence, arguing that the trial court had failed to consider mitigating circumstances under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.1, and the trial court had not made a sentencing statement, the case was remanded for the trial court to make such a statement. This was required for meaningful review.
|
|||||
| Shane v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 82A01-0610-CV-465,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 17, 2007, Decided, July 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a trip-and-fall case, the trial court properly granted defendants' motion to set aside a default judgment. There was excusable neglect in that there had been a breakdown in communications within defendants' insurance company, and an attorney's affidavit and the factual circumstances supported the finding of a meritorious defense.
|
|||||
| Trinity Baptist Church v. Howard, No. 45A05-0605-CV-230,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 17, 2007, Decided, July 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of church's summary judgment motion in a pastor's suit claiming breach of a compensation agreement was proper because church's by-laws, incorporated into the agreement, stated that the pastor was called for life and removable only by death. This provision was unequivocal and it negated presumption that the pastor was at will employee.
|
|||||
| Bond v. Walsh & Kelly, Inc., No. 45A03-0701-CV-28,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for contractor was proper in a passenger's case for injuries from a traffic accident because, although the passenger claimed that a street defect caused accident, designated evidence did not show that contractor's repaving plans were, on their face, obviously dangerous or defective or that repaving was performed negligently.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, No. 49A04-0606-CR-287,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction was supported by the violent and unprovoked circumstances of the crimes, including murder and robbery, as well as defendant's juvenile record. Waiver of rights was valid as defendant and mother were advised of defendant's rights, had time to discuss them, and agreed defendant waive rights and talk to police.
|
|||||
| Jack v. State, No. 71A03-0609-CR-451,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions of murder and of conspiracy to commit murder did not violate Indiana's double jeopardy clause, Ind. Const. art. 1, § 14, because evidence showed, inter alia, that defendant agreed with others to kill the victim, tricked the victim into driving to place chosen by defendant, and encouraged co-conspirator to shoot the victim to death.
|
|||||
| Adkins v. State, No. 20A03-0608-CR-351,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 19, 2007, Decided, July 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was charged with pointing firearm, defendant's substantial rights were not affected by exclusion of wife's testimony she was not present at victim's apartment during incident. Even if instruction to jury improperly shifted burden of proving gun was loaded to defendant, error was harmless because evidence demonstrated gun was loaded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
