 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Davis v. Trensey, No. 71A04-0610-JV-606,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that a second man had filed a paternity affidavit under Ind. Code Ann. § 16-37-2-2.1 did not foreclose a prosecutor's office from filing a paternity action against appellant under Ind. Code Ann. § 31-14-4-1. The statutes were not in conflict, and the presumption of paternity under the affidavit was properly rebutted by the paternity suit.
|
|||||
| In re Paternity of E.M.L.G., No. 71A04-0609-JV-490,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When putative fathers had signed paternity affidavits under Ind. Code § 16-37-2-2.1 and had not had them rescinded, it was error to treat child support proceedings as proceedings to disestablish paternity and to order genetic testing under Ind. Code § 31-14-6-1. Having failed to have the affidavits set aside, the men were the legal fathers.
|
|||||
| Stumpf v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., No. 02A03-0606-CV-251,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 8, 2007, Decided , March 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Worker's suit against general contractor should not have been dismissed on summary judgment, as contract between the latter and a property owner obliged the general contractor to take all necessary precautions for safety of employees on work site; by executing contract, general contractor assumed a duty of care for its subcontractors' employees.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. State, No. 82A04-0605-PC-237,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Issue as to sentencing aggravators was stronger than double jeopardy argument raised on direct appeal, and so appellant received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. However, in postconviction relief petition, aggravating factors of brutal nature of crime and lingering effect on victim supported maximum enhancement of murder sentence.
|
|||||
| In re Cloyd, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0604-DI-122,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and other rules, lawyer was suspended for one year for misconduct in which, inter alia, lawyer allowed a case to be dismissed for failure to prosecute, did not tell client about dismissal or his attempt to have it reinstated, but instead, concealed dismissal by misrepresenting status of case to client.
|
|||||
| In re Streckfus, Supreme Court Cause No. 22S00-0605-DI-178,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because more than six months had passed since an attorney was suspended due to noncooperation with the disciplinary process, and because the attorney had not responded, the attorney's suspension was converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 10(f)(4).
|
|||||
| In re Yudt, Supreme Court Cause No. 64S00-0605-DI-161,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because more than six months had passed since an attorney was suspended due to noncooperation with the disciplinary process, and because the attorney had not responded, the attorney's suspension was converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 10(f)(4).
|
|||||
| State v. Lindsay, No. 11A01-0602-CR-61,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 9, 2007, Decided , March 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A RICO charge under Ind. Code Ann. § 35-45-6-2 was time-barred under Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2. Defendant's allegedly false statements in 2003 and 2004 about homicides he had investigated until 1990 as an Indiana police officer were not predicate offenses that established a continuation of the alleged pattern of racketeering activity.
|
|||||
| Lafary v. Kindred (In re J.K.), No. 55A04-0607-CV-396,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 12, 2007, Decided , March 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Guardianship of grandparents over their granddaughter was properly terminated pursuant to Ind. Code § 29-3-12-1(c), as the trial court properly placed the burden of proof on the grandparents, and the evidence supported the finding that the circumstances of the parents had changed, so the decision was not clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. D.L.B., No. 89A05-0512-CV-747,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, March 12, 2007, Decided , March 12, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child's emotional distress claim arising from witnessing accident in which his cousin was fatally injured was not confined to single "each person" cap applicable to cousin's bodily injury and damages to others resulting from cousin's bodily injury, because, although the child was not hurt in the accident, he sustained a separate bodily injury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
