 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Edmonds v. State, No. 46A05-0504-CR-214,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was questioned and made statement after ambiguous waiver of Fifth Amendment right to counsel; statement was properly admitted since there was no unequivocal invocation of that right; consecutive sentencing was improper without significant aggravating factor, so court revised to concurrent sentencing under Ind. R. App. P. 7(B).
|
|||||
| Lucas Outdoor Adver., LLC v. City of Crawfordsville, No. 54A04-0509-CV-507,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City board of zoning appeals' decision denying an advertising company's applications for the placement of billboards was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The city's billboard ordinance was read as prohibiting off-premises signage, including those that the company had proposed.
|
|||||
| M.Q.M. v. State, No. 44A05-0508-JV-458,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the delinquent child intended to deprive his parents permanently of the value or use of the car when he took if for a joy ride, the Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2.5(b) auto theft finding was vacated and replace with a finding of conversion under Ind. Code § 35-43-4-3(a).
|
|||||
| Marion-Adams Sch. Corp. v. Boone, No. 06A01-0507-CV-309,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff county resident was entitled to attorney fees under Ind. Code § 5-14-1.5-7(f) of Indiana's Open Door Law (ODL), where she showed that the filing of her declaratory relief action against a school corporation was necessary to prevent a future violation of the ODL by the corporation.
|
|||||
| Naugle v. Beech Grove City Schs., No. 49A02-0505-CV-472,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: School corporation did not meet the definition of an employer under the Wage Payment Statute, so summary judgment was properly granted to a school on former employees' claims that they were not paid within 10 days and were entitled to liquidated damages under Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1.
|
|||||
| Shelton v. Shelton, No. 82S04-0601-CV-8,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: "Family member" as used in Ind. Parenting Time Guideline § I(C)(3) was interpreted by the Indiana Court of Appeals to mean a person within the same household as the parent with physical custody.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. State, No. 53A01-0508-CR-391,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of a stipulation entered into between the State and defendant, appellate court disagreed with defendant's argument that circuit court erred by denying his right to a jury for the purpose of finding aggravating circumstances. Even absent aggravating factors, enhancement was proper in light of defendant's criminal history alone.
|
|||||
| Covington v. Marion County Office of Family & Children (In re S.M.), No. 49A02-0504-JV-345,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly terminated a father's parental rights to his son pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2), because the father's refusal to comply with paternity proceedings indicated that the conditions resulting in the child's removal from parental care would not be remedied.
|
|||||
| Washington v. State, No. 49A02-0412-CR-1012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since notice of alibi was late under Ind. Code § 35-36-4-1 without good cause, Ind. Code § 35-36-4-3(b) required exclusion of alibi witnesses; though exclusion violated U.S. Const. amend. VI Compulsory Process Clause rights, the error was harmless, defendant was allowed to testify to alibi, and value of additional alibi witnesses was questionable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
