 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Armstrong v. Keene, No. 18A02-0609-CV-747,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a buyer who had entered into a land sale contract defaulted under the contract and then transferred his interest back to the seller, the buyer was not entitled to foreclosure. By executing a bill of sale, the buyer indicated his willingness to forego his equity, if any, in the real estate; therefore, he could not seek foreclosure.
|
|||||
| In re James, Supreme Court Cause No. 44S00-0510-DI-449,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney made a statement to a trial court knowing it to be false, the attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a)(1); consequently, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for a period of 90 days for his misconduct.
|
|||||
| In re Whitehead, Supreme Court Cause No. 26S00-0610-DI-367,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 20, 2007, Decided , February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney required a nonrefundable minimum fee and then refused to return unearned fees to the client upon termination, the attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(a), 1.16(d); consequently, pursuant to the parties' Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 11(c) agreement, the attorney was publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.
|
|||||
| Brockmann Enters., L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, No. 02A04-0605-CV-272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 21, 2007, Decided , February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The provisions of an ordinance relating to storm water charges were void because in setting the charges, the city had not followed the procedures set forth in Ind. Code §§ 8-1.5-3-4(a)(7), 8-1.5-5-6, and 8-1.5-5-7(b). Under Ind. Code § 36-1-3-6(a), a city had to exercise a power in the way prescribed by statute if there was such a statute.
|
|||||
| In re Lehman, Supreme Court Cause No. 29S00-0510-DI-498,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 21, 2007, Decided , February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney threatened opposing counsel with a claim of unethical conduct if counsel did not agree to a continuance, the attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d); consequently, pursuant to the parties' Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 11(c) agreement, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 120 days.
|
|||||
| Meyers v. Meyers, No. 29S04-0609-CV-326,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 21, 2007, Decided , February 21, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a former employee alleged that he had been discharged in retaliation for asserting a claim for unpaid wages, he had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court declined to find an exception to the at-will employment doctrine for discharge in retaliation for exercising a statutory right to receive overtime.
|
|||||
| Lambert v. Lambert, No. 32S01-0604-CV-136,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When before his incarceration, a father agreed to pay $277 per week in child support, it was error to require him to pay the same amount during his incarceration. Courts were not to impute potential income to an imprisoned parent based on pre-incarceration wages or other employment-related income, but on the actual income and assets available.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Elkhart Cmty. Sch., CAUSE NO. 20A03-0605-CV-207,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 22, 2007, Decided , February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Gault v. State, No. 27A02-0603-CR-224,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 23, 2007, Decided , February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence defendant was only one who stood between car and house during incident, that grocery bag was in plain view and appeared to have been placed against house recently, and that defendant was very defensive and insisted he was innocent even before asked, was sufficient to support conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
