 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Frey v. State, No. 80A02-0504-CR-334,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mitigating factors did not outweigh aggravating factors of 1) extreme youth of victim and defendant's position of trust with her; and 2) fact that he twice crushed her against floor with his foot with such force that it caused injuries consistent with suffocation and strangulation; thus, eight year sentence for class B felony battery was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Hopkins v. State, No. 49A02-0507-PC-653,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant had ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise clear and binding case law that required a reduction of Class A robbery convictions, which were found to have violated double jeopardy, to Class C robberies under Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1 since the State did not specifically allege a deadly weapon was used.
|
|||||
| Horseman v. Keller, No. 49S00-0501-CV-17,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in declaring that an absentee voting statute, Ind. Code § 3-12-1-13, was unconstitutional pursuant to Ind. Const. art. I, § 23, as the preferential treatment given to Election Day voters under Ind. Code § 3-12-1-13 was reasonably related to the inherently different characteristics of Election Day voters and absentee voters.
|
|||||
| Lasater v. House, No. 18S04-0409-CV-430,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although state appellate court concluded that testator's statements were admissible under Ind. R. Evid. 803(3), the state high court noted that this provision was a state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule. Testator's hearsay statements were not transformed into non-hearsay simply because they tangentially involved her state of mind.
|
|||||
| Progressive Ins. Co. v. Bullock, No. 16A01-0504-CV-142,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, January 31, 2006, Decided , January 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer was not entitled to enforce anti-stacking clause in driver's policy with her own insurer since insurer's policy with its insureds, who were injured as passengers, contained no such clause; policy was ambiguous on definition of person for recovery, so insurer could be liable for injuries to insureds' child that were sustained in utero.
|
|||||
| Campbell v. State, No. 45A03-0504-CR-171,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly admitted handgun as abandoned property in defendant's trial for carrying a handgun without a license as a Class C felony in violation of Ind. Code § 35-47-2-23(c)(2)(B); defendant had not been seized in violation of Fourth Amendment or Ind. Const. art. I, § 11 when police shined a spotlight on him while on patrol.
|
|||||
| Coca-Cola Co. v. Babyback's Int'l, Inc., No. 49S02-0408-CV-380,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parties' alleged multi-year national co-marketing agreement, which was not reduced to writing, was unenforceable under the Indiana Statute of Frauds, Ind. Code § 32-21-1-1; as the alleged agreement was not performable within a year, under Indiana law, it could not be validated by part performance.
|
|||||
| Rowlett v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Children, No. 82A01-0506-JV-244,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment to terminate a father's parental rights was reversed because the trial court abused its discretion in denying the father's motion for a continuance of the termination hearing. Further, the county agency did not prove the factors required under Ind. Code § 31-35-2-4(b)(2) to terminate his parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| Ritter v. Dollens (In re Guidant S'holders Derivative Litig.), No. 94S00-0407-CQ-318,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders' demand on board of directors was not futile simply because complaint named all directors; availability of disinterested committee under Ind. Code Ann. § 23-1-32-4 barred separate derivative action unless shareholders could show that committee was not disinterested or that its decision was not undertaken after good faith investigation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
