 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Keeney v. State, No. 21A01-0611-CR-495,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ind. Code § 10-13-6-10, under which defendant was required to supply DNA samples, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It had been held that collection of samples served a special need beyond the normal need for law enforcement and crime detection, and defendant had not explained why the statute could not withstand a less stringent balancing test.
|
|||||
| Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Heck, No. 29A04-0701-CV-28,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An insurer was required to cover a husband for injuries his wife suffered while he was driving. There was an agreement whereby the insurer accepted liability on the husband's behalf and left only damages for resolution; although there was no signed, written agreement, an adjustor's conduct over 28 months demonstrated the existence of an agreement.
|
|||||
| T.D. v. State, No. 49A02-0702-JV-186,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of motion to suppress was proper because officer's testimony that he stopped vehicle in which appellant was riding because windshield was cracked and obstructed the driver's view was sufficient to support his reasonable belief that a traffic stop was required, and thus the stop was reasonable for purposes of Ind. Const. art. I, § 11.
|
|||||
| CSX Transp., Inc. v. Gardner, No. 49A02-0610-CV-917,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 18, 2007, Decided, September 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying railroad's motion to offset jury award made to employee on his lawsuit under Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S.C.S. § 51 et seq., for injury he sustained due to its alleged negligence; collateral source rule prevented it from setting off disability payments made to him by retirement fund from jury award.
|
|||||
| Gosha v. State, No. 48A05-0610-CR-561,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 18, 2007, Decided, September 18, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to appoint pauper counsel for appeal from probation revocation was proper because defendant admitted to four violations, the revocation was thus uncontested, and under Ind. R. Crim. P. 11, trial court was not required to make advisements regarding right to appeal or determine whether he was entitled pauper counsel.
|
|||||
| Kho v. Pennington, No. 72S04-0609-CV-332,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 19, 2007, Decided, September 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Doctor's claim against the malpractice claimant and her attorneys for violation of the identity confidentiality provision of Ind. Code § 34-18-8-7, presented cognizable negligence action for violation of an express statutory duty, consistent with the values protected by Ind. Const. art. I, § 12 and preserving health care services for the community.
|
|||||
| Lake County Assessor v. United States Steel Corp., Cause No. 49T10-0703-TA-19,
INDIANA TAX COURT, September 19, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a taxpayer appealed the obsolescence depreciation of its real property, it was proper to exclude evidence regarding the obsolescence depreciation of the taxpayer's personal property. Claim and issue preclusion did not apply, as real and personal property were distinct and obsolescence was established differently as to each.
|
|||||
| Tucker v. Duke, No. 05A05-0612-CV-706,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 19, 2007, Decided, September 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dog keeper's liability for bite by girlfriend's pit bull was supported by evidence he kept dog chained to stake in backyard for four moths, allowing for reasonable inference that dog had become dangerous and vicious due to lack of training and socialization, and by common knowledge that particular breed was known for having dangerous propensities.
|
|||||
| Whiteside v. Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., Unemployment Ins. Review Bd., No. 93A02-0703-EX-229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 19, 2007, Decided, September 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unemployment benefit claimant was not entitled to benefits based on her voluntary unemployment so that she could care for her quadriplegic son; the exclusion from disqualification provided to disabled individuals found in Ind. Code § 22-4-15-1(c)(2) did not extend to claimants with a relative who was disabled.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
