 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Kellems v. State, No. 62S05-0501-CR-15,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed because where an informant called the police and gave them her name, birthdate, and address, and gave specific information about defendant driving while intoxicated and without a license, the tip gave the police reasonable suspicion to stop defendant without a traffic violation.
|
|||||
| McHugh v. Review Bd., No. 93A02-0507-EX-677,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an employee lied to her employer about reasons for seeking time off, she was fired for just cause, under Ind. Code § 22-4-15-1(d)(8) (2005), and was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Her request to submit additional evidence on administrative review was properly denied as her proposed evidence was irrelevant to the reason she was fired.
|
|||||
| Sellmer v. State, No. 29S04-0602-CR-58,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, February 16, 2006, Decided , February 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a police officer obtained defendant's consent to search her car without giving her a Pirtle warning about her right to consult with counsel, the consent was invalid and the resulting search violated the Fourth Amendment and Ind. Const. art. I, § 11. Defendant was entitled to suppress evidence of marijuana seized from the car.
|
|||||
| City of Gary v. Enter. Trucking & Waste Hauling, Inc., No. 45A03-0506-CV-251,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When, after a trial court granted a contractor a temporary injunction against a city, the city moved, under Ind. R. Trial P. 76(B), for a change of venue from the judge, which was granted, the same trial judge had no jurisdiction to then grant the contractor's permanent injunction motion because a permanent injunction was not an emergency matter.
|
|||||
| Sims v. Town of New Chicago, No. 45A03-0506-CV-283,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the absence of a statute, an easement could not have been acquired by prescription against the government. Neither Ind. Code § 32-1-20-2 nor Ind. Code § 32-21-7-2 specifically provided that a prescriptive easement could have been acquired on property owned by the State or by a political subdivision.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, No. 79A02-0504-CR-271,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 17, 2006, Decided , February 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indiana allowed arrestee to resist arrester's use of excessive force by reasonable force to protect himself against great bodily harm or death. There was evidence supporting a proposed instruction about defendant's right to protect himself when arresting officers used excessive force, and refusal to give the instruction was harmful error.
|
|||||
| State v. Fridy, No. 65A01-0509-CR-418,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 20, 2006, Decided , February 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in granting a motion to suppress to sanction the State's non-compliance with an order to reveal informants. Had it omitted the informants' uncorroborated hearsay from probable cause consideration, it could have sanctioned the State and found, under the Fourth Amendment, enough corroborating evidence to support a search warrant.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
