 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Adams v. Chavez, No. 77A01-0605-CV-221,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 17, 2007, Decided, October 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to dismiss a proposed medical malpractice complaint under Ind. Code § 34-18-10-14. Relief could be granted only when a party, attorney, or panelist had failed to act as required by Ind. Code ch. 34-18-10; although respondent could have acted to move along the medical review panelist selection process, he was not required to do so.
|
|||||
| City of Carmel v. Certain Home Place Annexation Terr. Landowners, No. 29A04-0510-CV-578,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 17, 2007, Decided, October 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an annexation proceeding, it was error to find that a city's fiscal plan did not comply with Ind. Code § 36-4-3-13(d). It was apparent that the city had made credible and enforceable commitments to provide services to the territory, and the trial court's finding that the plan did not meet the statutory requirements was akin to a judicial audit.
|
|||||
| Starr v. State, No. 48A02-0701-CR-96,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 17, 2007, Decided, October 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who had pleaded guilty, was not entitled to challenge on direct appeal the trial court's denials of his motions to dismiss and the State's amendment of the charging information. A person who pleaded guilty could not challenge the propriety of his convictions on direct appeal, only his sentence.
|
|||||
| Stephens v. State, No. 20A05-0702-CR-95,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 17, 2007, Decided, October 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly held that a felony nonsupport defendant was collaterally estopped from arguing the validity of a child support order. The State was invoking offensive collateral estoppel, and to hold that strict mutuality and identity of parties were required would allow all nonsupport defendants to challenge the underlying support orders.
|
|||||
| Hilliard v. Jacobs, No. 28A05-0702-CV-120,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Life insurance policies purchased by defendant on a decedent when the two were partners were valid at their inception because defendant had an insurable interest in the decedent's life and because the decedent consented to the policies' issuance. Thus, defendant was entitled to maintain the policies on the decedent after the partnership terminated.
|
|||||
| Kopka, Landau & Pinkus v. Hansen, No. 49A02-0611-CV-987,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's judgment awarding damages and attorney fees to former employee on his counterclaim pursuant to Indiana Wage Payment Statute, Ind. Code §§ 22-2-5-1 and 22-2-5-2, was reversed, as business development commissions he received were not wages under that law, especially since they were based on collections for services and not on billings.
|
|||||
| Natare Corp. v. Cardinal Accounts, Inc., No. 49A05-0704-CV-210,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to reinstate a complaint under Ind. R. Trial P. 41(F) and 60(B)(8). Plaintiff had presented no admissible evidence showing a meritorious claim or that a different result would have been reached had the matter been tried on the merits; plaintiff had not shown exceptional circumstances; and the equities weighed against reinstatement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
