Legal Opinion

Cox Ex Rel. Zick v. Nichols

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 26, 1998No. 71A03-9612-CV-430PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellants Andrew Cox and his mother, Karlene J. Zick, appeal the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment that their lawsuit for damages sustained in an automobile collision should be determined under Michigan law. The facts relevant to the appeal are recited below.

In December 1993, Cox and Zick filed their complaint alleging that in June 1993 defendant-appellant Donald E. Nichols, an uninsured motorist, negligently operated his vehicle which struck Zick’s car. The plaintiffs filed suit after requesting payment under the uninsured motorist provision of Zick’s…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hubbard Manufacturing Co. v. GreesonIndiana Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Pennington v. American Family Insurance GroupIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Matter of Estate of BruckIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Brockmeyer v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1993

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires ProductsDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2001
  2. Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of IllinoisOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Paper Manufacturers Co. v. Rescuers, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 1999
  4. Judge v. Pilot Oil Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. McNealDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2007

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API