Search for: "State v. Court of Appeals of Indiana" Results 481 - 500 of 3,176
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2010, 7:05 pm by Michael Ginsborg
Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said the amendment is unlikely to receive a hearing this year, arguing the state's trial and appeals courts have upheld Indiana's marriage law [Morrison v. [read post]
16 Apr 2008, 12:17 am
I made an exception when I read COA: teacher within rights in striking student from The Indiana Daily Lawyer.Judges Patricia Riley and Melissa May agreed with the trial court in State of Indiana v. [read post]
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently shed more light on what constitutes a “special relationship” necessary for a plaintiff to establish constructive fraud without proving the five traditional elements of constructive fraud. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 8:47 pm
The Indiana Court of Appeals properly followed the dictates of the Indiana Code and the Indiana Supreme Court in upholding Ben- Yisrayl's sentence; and in making this determination, the court did not run afoul of Supreme Court precedent. [read post]
7 Jan 2007, 4:17 pm
The Indiana Supreme Court changed some rules in light of that decision, but Sharp determined the state court did not go far enough. [read post]
5 Jul 2009, 8:05 am
As I am still catching up from hiatus last month, I can only offer The Indiana Lawyer Daily report on a new lemon law case, COA rules on first impression lemon-law issueThe Indiana Court of Appeals tackled today an issue of first impression regarding the state's lemon law: Once a consumer has met the law's repair threshold, he can still file an action under the lemon law even if a subsequent repair fixes the problem.In Metro Health… [read post]
27 Jul 2007, 7:28 am
The Indiana Court of Appeals July 24th decision in Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., et al. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 2:00 pm
Cathy Benko, et al., the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the plain language of an insured's underinsured motorist provision in the policy "would lead an ordinary policyholder to believe that they were required to bring a bodily injury claim against the alleged tortfeasor within the applicable statute of limitations. [read post]