 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Batchelor v. Batchelor, No. 11A01-0512-CV-586,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit by the widow of a Department of Correction (DOC) employee, it was error to hold that the DOC had breached a contractual duty to its employee to ensure that he effected insurance beneficiary changes after his divorce. The record did not show a contract imposing such a duty, and the widow had not pointed to a statute creating such a duty.
|
|||||
| Combs v. Daniels, No. 22A01-0602-CV-70,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Students and school employees were not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring closure of a school for children with disabilities, as Ind. Code § 16-33-3-4 authorized Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Health to close the school, and there was no evidence the students and employees would be irreparably harmed by the school's closure.
|
|||||
| In re Ramirez, Case No. 49S00-0605-DI-156,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, August 28, 2006, Decided , August 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney agreed to end his representation of clients who had filed a grievance and to forgive their outstanding legal bill, then suggested that they consider withdrawing the grievance, he had violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The attorney was publicly reprimanded.
|
|||||
| Grant v. Hager, No. 82A01-0511-CV-490,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 29, 2006, Decided , August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ordering a mother to pay child support to a father pursuant to the father's modification request, as Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(G) did not permit the application of a parenting time credit in a manner that required a custodial parent to pay child support to a noncustodial parent.
|
|||||
| Vanderburgh County Auditor v. Michigana Campgrounds, LLC, No. 82A01-0601-CV-13,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a tax sale purchaser chose not to request a tax deed, it was entitled under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-4.6(d) to a refund of the purchase price, minus a 25 percent penalty. A "purchaser's failure" under the statute included the situation where a purchaser chose not to meet the statutory requirements.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
