 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ind. DOT v. Howard, No. 46A05-0701-CV-36,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order denying appellants' motion for summary judgment was not a final appealable order under Ind. R. Trial P. 54(B) or 56(C), but an interlocutory order. Because appellants had not followed the proper procedure for bringing an interlocutory appeal, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.
|
|||||
| Cinergy Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 32A01-0605-CV-218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted partial summary judgment to insurers in a declaratory judgment action concerning insurance coverage, because the insurance policies in question did not provide coverage to energy companies for costs of installing equipment to reduce pollution, which was the concern of the claims in an underlying suit.
|
|||||
| Evan v. Poe & Assocs., No. 71A05-0611-CV-657,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendants as to plaintiffs' claims that defendants were negligent in preparing an insurance application, because a release unambiguously applied to all persons and all claims arising from the issuance of the insurance policy, and the release barred the action.
|
|||||
| Helm v. Helm, No. 01A04-0703-CV-175,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the trial court would have been justified in unequally dividing the marital estate had it correctly included the lottery payments, as it otherwise satisfied the requirements of Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5, an ex-wife was not hurt by their exclusion when the original distribution took them into account and did not change when they were later excluded.
|
|||||
| Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A02-0703-CV-218,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Once an employer let employees earn "paid time off" compensation, which vested upon their performance of required services, the Wage Claims Statute, Ind. Code § 22-2-9-1 et seq. (2004), governed when that compensation was payable upon a termination of employment, and not the employer's manual, because the compensation was a wage, under the statute.
|
|||||
| Reuille v. E. E. Brandenberger Constr., Inc., No. 02A04-0704-CV-186,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the parties entered into a settlement agreement, plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the parties' construction contract. The settlement agreement did not provide a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties, and plaintiff did not have a consent decree or an enforceable judgment entered along with the agreement.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cox, No. 22A04-0607-CV-409,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 7, 2007, Decided, September 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the insurer's claim to the $ 50,000 was one of subrogation, the policy provided that it could only recover its uninsured motor vehicle coverage payments after the insured was fully compensated, and the insured had not been fully compensated, the insurer was not entitled to any of the $ 50,000 made available by a driver's insurer.
|
|||||
| Dowell v. State, No. 32S01-0709-CR-352,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 10, 2007, Decided, September 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court stated orally that a sentence should be suspended, this statement was preceded and followed by an announcement of its intent to follow the presentence report, which recommended no suspension. Thus, it was proper to find that the trial court's intent was not to suspend the sentence, as stated in the written sentencing order.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
