 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Blakley Corp. v. EFCO Corp., No. 49A05-0512-CV-697,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided , August 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding supplier breached purchase order agreement was supported by testimony supplier had not reviewed proposal requirements before submitting bid and fact supplier did not establish specifications given by subcontractor were erroneous or defective. Subcontractor was not entitled to markup as it would have gone beyond making subcontractor whole.
|
|||||
| Bowman v. McNary, No. 79A04-0511-CV-684,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a teammate in plaintiff's personal injury action, as the teammate owed no duty to prevent plaintiff from being hit with a golf club when the teammate took a practice swing, which was an inherent risk of golf, and the teammate was not reckless for failing to locate plaintiff before taking the swing.
|
|||||
| Bridgestone Ams. Holding, Inc. v. Mayberry, No. 48A02-0504-CV-368,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided , August 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Assuming arguendo that company's formula was "trade secret" under Ind. Code § 24-2-3-2, plaintiff established that she needed it to prove that company's tire was defective. Thus, court did not abuse its discretion when it fashioned a narrowly tailored protective order under Ind. R. Trial P. 26(C)(7) and compelled company to disclose its formula.
|
|||||
| Cruite v. State, No. 03A04-0511-PC-651,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to deny defendant's petition to file a belated notice of appeal under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2, § 1. Defendant, who had pleaded guilty, had not been at fault in the delay because the trial court had failed to inform him of his appellate rights, and he had been diligent in requesting permission to file the belated appeal.
|
|||||
| Payne v. State, No. 71A04-0506-CR-362,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Miranda rights were violated when defendant was placed in an interview room for seven hours and divulged essentially everything before being given Miranda warnings, after which she reiterated her entire story. A reasonable person would not have felt free to leave during the seven-hour period, and such two-part interrogation had been condemned.
|
|||||
| Pope v. State, No. 30A01-0512-CR-580,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided , August 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant agreed to be returned to jail without going through a court if it was determined that she had violated any of the community corrections rules, defendant had not waived her due process rights. The failure to provide notice and a hearing was not harmless error, as it deprived defendant from obtaining probative evidence.
|
|||||
| Prop.-Owners Ins. Co. v. Ted's Tavern, Inc., No. 73A01-0602-CV-49,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided , August 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conclusion that insurance company's policy covered potential liability of tavern, tavern owner, and tavern employees on claims against them for nuisance and negligent hiring, training, and supervision was error; policy exclusion for causing allegedly intoxicated patron's intoxication that allegedly caused death of decedent barred policy coverage.
|
|||||
| R&R Real Estate Co., LLC v. C&N Armstrong Farms, Ltd., No. 33A01-0507-CV-294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2006, Decided , August 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner's acceptance of judgment payment from farmer did not preclude its appeal under Ind. Code § 34-56-1-2, since it claimed entitlement to greater damages than it had been awarded, and the amount of its judgment would not have been reduced had its appeal failed. Farmer's cross-appeal, claiming a right to set-off for repairs, was immaterial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
