 |
|
 |
|
|
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. State, No. 32A04-0508-PC-442,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to correct erroneous sentence should have been granted pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-38-1-15 as trial court erred when it failed to attach habitual offender enhancement to specific conviction. Trial court did not have authority under Ind. Code §§ 35-33-7-6, 33-40-3-6, and 33-37-2-3 to reimburse public defender fund $16,350.
|
|||||
| Gabriel v. Windsor, Inc., No. 02A03-0504-CV-148,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by ordering specific performance that a home builder convey a drainage easement across the owner's lot to another lot because the drainage easement was not a term of the contract, and in ordering the builder to convey the property to the owner subject to the drainage easement, the court impermissibly added a term to the contract.
|
|||||
| Mainsource Bank v. Unsupervised Estate of Hermann, No. 16A05-0505-CV-244,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in finding that a husband did not intend to dispose of the entireties property in his will and in concluding that the doctrine of equitable election did not apply; there was the presumption that the husband intended to dispose only of his own property and there was no evidence to the contrary.
|
|||||
| Marcum v. State, No. 29A05-0507-CR-372,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion to suppress was proper where the detection of the odor of marijuana by police officers could serve as probable cause for a search without the odor being independently confirmed by a trained dog; officers' testimony that they smelled raw and burnt marijuana was sufficient to allow a search of defendant's vehicle.
|
|||||
| Mitchell v. Universal Solutions of N.C., Inc., CONSOLIDATED APPEAL 29A02-0411-CV-931,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grants of summary judgment to two employers were affirmed because two former employees, in actions under Indiana's Wage Claim Statutes, Ind. Code ch. 22-2-9, were not entitled to payment under Ind. Code § 22-2-5-1 as the employers' policies prevented the payment to the employees for unused vacation days which they had accrued.
|
|||||
| Vasquez v. Phillips, No. 45A04-0507-CV-423,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the six plaintiffs made a demand upon defendant pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-50-1-6, plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees when the trial verdict was more favorable than the demand, but the matter was remanded for the presentation of evidence establishing the amount of fees and expenses actually incurred by plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Walker v. State, No. 49A02-0507-PC-663,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 28, 2006, Decided , February 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's claims that trial court erred by sentencing him to enhanced sentence and his statements to police were coerced were abandoned at post-conviction hearing. Trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for not objecting to enhanced sentence under Apprendi as it had not been interpreted in manner that would have invalidated sentencing.
|
|||||
| Staton v. State, No. 85A02-0508-CR-719,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 1, 2006, Decided , March 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not preserve the issue of his age for appellate review by filing a motion to dismiss, his conviction for sexual misconduct with a minor, a violation of Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a) (Repl. 2004), was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Mid-American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Shoney's Inc., No. 49A02-0503-CV-235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 3, 2006, Decided , March 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restaurant related businesses were not entitled to recover under decedent's homeowner's policy, which excluded business pursuits. Although decedent did not contaminate property, his liability under Ind. Code § 13-23-13-8 stemmed from his ownership of property. He bought property for operation of restaurant next to hotel in which he had invested.
|
|||||
| Danielson v. Pratt Indus., No. 93A02-0510-EX-1005,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indiana Worker's Compensation Board did not err in dismissing a doctor's application for adjustment of claim for provider fee for lack of jurisdiction, where no determination was made that the doctor's patient was an "employee" of a company, or that the company was the "employer" of the patient under Ind. Code § 22-3-6-1(a) and (b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
