 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, No. 03A04-0410-CV-554,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found that evidence concerning an insurance company's claim procedures was relevant pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 26(B)(1) in plaintiff's bad faith claim, as the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding the information was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs v. Pettigrew, No. 49A02-0509-CV-849,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Decided , July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a second employee told a human resources supervisor that she had seen plaintiff engage in a suspicious exchange of money while at work, plaintiff's defamation claim failed. The communications regarding plaintiff were subject to a qualified privilege, and the privilege had not been overcome, as it was undisputed that the exchange occurred.
|
|||||
| Estate of Troxal v. S.P.T., No. 55A01-0602-CV-73,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Decided , July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment entered in favor of a minor child as a contingent beneficiary under the deceased's life insurance policy was affirmed because the child was entitled to the proceeds from the life insurance policy when the primary beneficiary had murdered the deceased. Proceeds would not go to the estate under Ind. Code § 29-1-2-12.1(c).
|
|||||
| In re Cruz, No. 49S00-0603-JD-80,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 25, 2006, Decided , July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: By driving with a blood alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.08 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath, a superior court commissioner failed to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and to maintain high standards of conduct, thereby violating Ind. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 1. A public reprimand was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Moshenek v. State, No. 42A04-0511-PC-686,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Decided , July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a prisoner established that he had been diligent in his effort to challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court, the trial court erred in finding to the contrary and abused its discretion when it denied the prisoner's petition to file a belated notice of appeal pursuant to Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2.
|
|||||
| Selby v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., No. 45A05-0508-CV-498,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Decided , July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff injured worker, an employee of an independent contractor hired by a utility, sued the utility for his injuries, because the injured worker's coworker did not exercise ordinary and necessary precautions in detonating a charge of dynamite, the utility could not be held strictly liable for the injured worker's injuries.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Smith, No. 03A05-0601-CV-44,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 25, 2006, Decided , July 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in barring, without a hearing, the husband from introducing certain evidence in his divorce case as a sanction for his failure to respond to discovery; pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 37, a bar of evidence was a permissible sanction and a hearing was not required before that sanction was imposed.
|
|||||
| City of Gary v. McCrady, No. 45A04-0508-CV-485,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 26, 2006, Decided , July 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of a terminated employee was reversed because he was terminated in an open meeting by a final action in the city council's vote on a motion to appoint another person to his position under Ind. Code §§ 5-14-1.5-2 and 5-14-1.5-6.1(c). Further, no violation of the Indiana Open Door Law occurred under Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-3.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Younginer, No. 87A01-0504-CV-180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 26, 2006, Decided , July 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the context of a contract for sale of a home, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment on the evidence under Ind. R. Trial P. 50(A) on the president's personal liability for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for habitation and the implied warranty of workmanship. The implied warranties did not merge into the deed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
