 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bova v. Gary, No. 49A02-0505-CV-00385,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 16, 2006, Decided , March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing plaintiff to present evidence of the post-accident lost profits of an S corporation that he solely owned, as he was essentially its alter ego, and evidence was not offered as a claim of corporation itself, but to prove the value of his lost earning capacity.
|
|||||
| Duncan v. Duncan, No. 53A04-0507-CV-383,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 16, 2006, Decided , March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied father's motion under Ind. Code § 31-17-4-2 to establish parenting time with his sons, as evidence he had molested his daughter, threatened her with a gun, exhibited no remorse, and refused to undergo sex offender treatment, supported its finding that sons would be placed in volatile situation if visitation were allowed.
|
|||||
| Ivy v. State, No. 79A02-0503-CV-177,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State failed to establish its burden under Ind. Code § 34-24-1-4 to show that property in forfeiture case was subject to seizure under Ind. Code § 34-24-1-1(a)(2). There was lack of evidence that owner's money was connected to drug dealing, as there was no evidence that owner possessed box, which contained scales, that was found near owner.
|
|||||
| Joint Noble-LeGrange County Drainage Bd. v. Acres, Inc., No. 57A03-0507-CV-308,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 16, 2006, Decided , March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a drainage board's order creating a regulated drainage entailed the modification or encroachment of nature preserves, the order was a "taking" of the preserves, and the board's failure to make a finding of necessity and to obtain the governor's approval, as required by Ind. Code § 14-31-1-7(8), rendered the order invalid.
|
|||||
| Puckett v. State, No. 41A01-0502-PC-59,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 16, 2006, Decided , March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences were vacated as record was void of evidence defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived right to counsel at sentencing, consecutive sentences amounted to more than allowed, and operating motor vehicle after having been adjudicated habitual traffic offender was plainly excluded from Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(b)(2) habitual offender statute.
|
|||||
| Townsend v. State, No. 49A02-0504-CR-363,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 16, 2006, Decided , March 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was improperly permitted by the trial court to file a belated notice of appeal under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2(1). In his petition to file a belated notice of appeal, defendant presented no evidence that he was without fault in failing to file timely notice and that he was diligent in pursuing a belated appeal.
|
|||||
| Cochran v. State, No. 69A01-0504-CR-173,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 17, 2006, Decided , March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Town marshal did not seize defendant when he asked for identification. Conversation between marshal and defendant clearly fell within category of "consensual encounter" which did not implicate Fourth Amendment; marshal approached defendant as he was standing on public street, did not request defendant move, and did not stop defendant from moving.
|
|||||
| Foley v. Mannor, No. 20A05-0509-CV-509,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 17, 2006, Decided , March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The remedy of attachment under Ind. Code §§34-47-4-2 and 31-16-12-1 was not available in regard to the child support arrears matter in light of the fact that the child had been adopted by the ex-wife's new husband. Thus, such an order would have violated Ind. Const. art, 1, § 22.
|
|||||
| Kankakee Valley Rural Elec. Mbrshp. Corp. v. United Tel. Co. of Ind., Inc., No. 93A02-0505-EX-463,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 17, 2006, Decided , March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) had jurisdiction over a dispute between a rural electric membership corporation (REMC), which opted out of IURC jurisdiction, and public utilities, as to the REMC's compensation for the utilities' use of its poles, under Ind. Code § 8-1-2-5, because the IURC had jurisdiction over any such disputes.
|
|||||
| Weidenhammer v. Sorensen (In re J.B.S.), No. 79A04-0508-CV-486,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 17, 2006, Decided , March 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While a maternal aunt had been granted the privilege to visit her niece, she had no standing to participate in the stepgrandfather's adoption proceedings and certainly no standing to object to those proceedings once final. Since she had no standing, she could not obtain a reversal of the adoption based upon false statements made regarding her.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
