 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D.H. v. Marion County Office of Family & Children, No. 49A05-0606-JV-318,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding children were children in need of services was reversed because trial court did not find Marion County Department of Child Services proved, by preponderance of evidence, that children were seriously endangered as required under Ind. Code § 31-34-1-1; rather, trial court found that, if allegations were true, children would be endangered.
|
|||||
| Eshelman v. State, No. 57A05-0604-CR-185,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence seized from defendant's trash and pursuant to warrants issued after trash search was properly admitted; trash search was based on information received from deputy and inmate that defendant was involved with manufacturing methamphetamine, and evidence seized from trash, along with that information, provided basis for issuance of warrant.
|
|||||
| Heritage Lake Prop. Owners Ass'n v. York, No. 67A01-0607-CV-282,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's finding that a member of a homeowner's association, which association was a nonprofit corporation, had a right to call for the removal of one of the association's directors was affirmed because the member could call for the removal of the association's directors in accordance with the association's bylaws and Ind. Code § 23-17-12-8.
|
|||||
| Monroe Guar. Ins. Co. v. Engineered Roofing Sys., No. 82A01-0603-CV-98,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's grant of relief in favor of a buyer under Ind. R. Trial P. 60(B) was affirmed and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the buyer's counterclaim against an insurer because the trial court's order on summary judgment amounted to only a partial summary judgment as to the original claim that the insurer made against the buyer.
|
|||||
| Orlich v. Orlich, No.64A04-0607-CV-351,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's judgment regarding a father's child support obligations was affirmed in part as the father did not show that his daughter was emancipated. The judgment was reversed and remanded in part as the father should have been given credit toward his support obligations for social security benefits his children received from his disability.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, No. 48A05-0603-CR-122,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 10, 2007, Decided , January 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for battery by means of a deadly weapon did not violate Indiana's Double Jeopardy Clause; based on actual evidence test, appellate court concluded it was not reasonably possible jury in first trial convicted defendant of resisting law enforcement based upon evidence he agitated and pushed two large and vicious dogs toward the officers.
|
|||||
| Gleaves v. State, No. 49A02-0604-CR-340,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, January 11, 2007, Decided , January 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Consecutive sentences were properly imposed for defendant's manslaughter and aggravated battery convictions because multiple-victim aggravator tipped the balance so that aggravators outweighed the mitigators and a 40-year total sentence was not improper in light of the fact that defendant committed separate offenses against two separate victims.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
