 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McVey v. Sargent, No. 39A04-0601-CV-5,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indiana's child wrongful death statute granted to the parent of a child born alive the privilege of bringing an action for wrongful death. The word "child" in the statute did not include an unborn child. The statute did not violate the privileges and immunities clause of Indiana's Constitution, Ind. Const. art. I, § 23.
|
|||||
| Bowles v. Griffin Indus., No. 93A02-0603-EX-173,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a workers' compensation award was anything but "easily ascertainable," and an employer did not pay "very belatedly," to the contrary, whenever agreements were reached, it swiftly made payment, interest was not appropriate under the Worker's Compensation Act, Ind. Code §§ 22-3-1-1 to 22-3-12-5.
|
|||||
| Higgins v. State, No. 70A01-0508-CV-369,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ind. Code § 16-19-6-7 required that the salary schedule for teachers at state institutions mirror the salary schedule of the local teachers' contract that served as the baseline, in that the former was required to contain the same components as the latter. State was required to make retirement annuity contribution as part of teachers' salaries.
|
|||||
| Porter County Dev. Corp. v. Citibank (South Dakota), NA, No. 64A03-0511-CV-559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which county development corporation sued bank for reimbursement of funds paid to bank by development corporation's employee, because bank received money in good faith for valuable consideration and without notice or knowledge of employee's alleged misappropriation, bank's motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
|
|||||
| Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., No. 49A02-0601-CV-27,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly set a hearing on a corporation's summary judgment motion before addressing the issue of certification of former employees' class action, as Ind. R. Trial P. 23(C)(1) did not require that certification be completed before considering the motion and potential class members were not in jeopardy of being precluded from the suit.
|
|||||
| State v. Young, No. 46A03-0512-CV-583,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When calculating the salaries of teachers employed by the Department of Correction under Ind. Code § 11-10-5-4(b), a technology stipend and a I.R.C. § 403(b) contribution received by teachers in a county's largest school corporation were not to be considered. The payments were not part of the "salary schedule" in the school corporation's CBA.
|
|||||
| Truelove v. Truelove, No. 17A05-0606-CV-314,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 18, 2006, Decided , October 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly awarded custody of a mother's two children to the children's paternal grandparents. Although the trial court refrained from labeling the mother an unfit parent, there was clear and convincing evidence that the children's best interests were substantially served by placement with the grandparents.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
