Lachenman v. stice
Webv. ) ) Trial Court Case No. CAMERON F. CLARK, IN ) 49D02-1306-MI-016812 . HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY ) OF THE INDIANA ) DEPARTMENT OF ) The Honorable ... Lachenman v. Stice, 838 N.E. 2d 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) because unlike the dog in . Lachenman, Ms. Liddle’s dog, Copper, has no market value and therefore, Campins v. Capels, WebNov 30, 2005 · Full Case Name: Sean T. LACHENMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Chere Lachenman, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Mitchell STICE and Josephine Stice, …
Lachenman v. stice
Did you know?
WebLachenman, 838 N.E.2d at 457. The court found that even though the neighbors may have been negligent in failing to keep their dogs on leashes and otherwise failing to properly supervise their dogs, such actions did not constitute outrageous behavior as contemplated by the narrow definition adopted from the Restatement. Id. WebAug 4, 2024 · Lachenman v. Stice, 838 N.E.2d 451, 456 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) (citation omitted). Rather, liability can be found "only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
WebLachenman v. Stice: 838 N.E.2d 451 (Ind.App.) In this Indiana case, a dog owner whose dog was attacked and killed by a neighbor's dog, brought an action against the neighbor to recover veterinary bills and emotional distress damages. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendant-neighbor ... WebFeb 3, 2010 · Lachenman v. Stice , 838 N.E.2d 451, 457 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). However, although intent is a required element, it is not enough that the defendant acted with an …
WebMay 30, 2003 · Lachenman v. Stice, No. 15A01-0503-CV-113. United States Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana November 30, 2005 ...this vicious propensity at the time of the alleged … WebJustia › US Law › Case Law › Indiana Case Law › Indiana Court of Appeals Decisions › 2005 › Sean T. Lachenman v. Mitchell & Josephine Stice Mitchell & Josephine Stice Receive free …
Webthe fair market value of the animal); see also Lachenman v. Stice, 838 N.E.2d 451, 464 n.12 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that the fair market value of a dog is not limited to its replace …
WebJun 30, 2015 · Lachenman v. Stice, 838 N.E.2d 451, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied (2006). Therefore, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in Appellees' favor on those claims. Section 2.2—Appellees are entitled to summary judgment on Bah's malicious prosecution claim. fenetworkWebJan 12, 2009 · Appellant's App. p. 190. On December 9, 2003, the Lindseys filed suit against DeGroot Dairy seeking to enjoin the dairy from further operation and for compensation for nuisance, negligence, trespass, criminal mischief, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. DeGroot Dairy filed a motion for summary judgment on September 17, 2007. fenevision web center krestmarkWebLachenman v. Stice, 838 N.E.2d 451, 457 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In Branham, a plaintiff employee was sleeping at work during a break, and a co-worker asked a supervisor to take a picture of them. Branham, 744 N.E.2d at 519. In the photograph, the co-worker was standing by the plaintiff employee with his pants down and his hand held ... deidre orell wilton ct