 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hodge v. Johnson, No. 82A04-0510-CV-568,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 18, 2006, Decided , August 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where patient had sent letter to Indiana Department of Insurance seeking to dismiss proposed medical malpractice complaint against doctor, trial court properly made preliminary determination of law under Ind. Code § 34-18-11-1 that patient could not rescind dismissal. Patient expressed her clear intent to dismiss complaint, as was her right.
|
|||||
| Ikemire v. State, No. 42A01-0510-CR-473,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 18, 2006, Decided , August 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defense counsel did not ask the witness what the inmate said but defense counsel's question as to what the witness learned from the inmate would have elicited a hearsay response pursuant to Ind. R. Evid. 801(c), the trial court properly excluded this testimony.
|
|||||
| In re Harper, Case No. 49S00-0606-DI-225,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, August 18, 2006, Decided , August 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney was found guilty of a crime punishable as a felony, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 11.1(a), he was suspended from the practice of law until further order of the state supreme court.
|
|||||
| In re Hosinski, Case No. 71S00-0604-DI-146,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, August 18, 2006, Decided , August 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney had failed to respond to an order to show cause why he had not replied to the Disciplinary Commission's demands for a response to a grievance filed against him, and he had not shown sufficient grounds to be granted an extension of time, he was suspended from practicing law under Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(10)(f).
|
|||||
| Penny v. Review Bd., No. 93A02-0506-EX-577,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 18, 2006, Decided , August 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A worker was immune from any penalty or forfeiture as the Review Board of the Indianan Department of Workforce Development's decided to compel her testimony. Thus, her wage credits could not be cancelled. However, the order that she repay benefits to which she was not entitled was not a "penalty" for which Ind. Code § 22-4-17-9 provided immunity.
|
|||||
| Reising v. Reising, No. 82A01-0505-CV-229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 18, 2006, Decided , August 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment appointing an adult child's mother as his guardian, based on the record of prior hearings, was error as the mother did not designate the record's supporting parts, under Ind. R. Trial P. 56(H), and those hearings' orders did not support appointment, nor did collateral estoppel bar the child's father from contesting the appointment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
