 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hass v. State, No. 64A03-0501-CV-11,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 20, 2006, Decided , March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owners waived appellate review of the order overruling their objections to an eminent domain complaint by failing to timely appeal from that interlocutory order pursuant to Ind. Code § 32-24-1-8(e). By failing to file exceptions to the appraisers' report with the trial court, the owners also waived review of the issue of damages.
|
|||||
| Palmer v. Gorecki, No. 46A03-0506-CV-286,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, March 20, 2006, Decided , March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Patient's medical malpractice claim was properly dismissed on summary judgment as barred by statute of limitations under Ind. Code § 34-18-7-1; patient should have discovered injury when he experienced symptoms, which occurred outside limitations period; fraudulent concealment and continued wrong doctrines were inapplicable.
|
|||||
| Walton v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 49A02-0506-CV-583,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 20, 2006, Decided , March 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title insurance company properly denied a property owner's request for a defense in an underlying action seeking an easement over the property in question, as the action was excluded from coverage under the policy because the property was subject to the rights and obligations enacted in a declaration of covenants and rights.
|
|||||
| Field v. State, No. 28A04-0511-CR-639,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing defendant on his conviction for conspiracy to commit a drug offense was not error; evidence in record showed trial court properly considered aggravating and mitigating factors, did not err in weighing them, and the sentence was appropriate pursuant to Ind. App. R. 7(B) in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
|
|||||
| Hoosier Outdoor Adver. Corp. v. RBL Mgmt., No. 53A01-0508-CV-368,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not give proper deference to county zoning appeals board's interpretation of Monroe, Ind., County Zoning Ordinance § 807-5(C), or to its reasonable application of § 807-5(C) to permit relocation of advertiser's nonconforming off-premises signs, or to finding that property owner could not erect new nonconforming signs in their place.
|
|||||
| J.S. v. State, No. 49A02-0506-JV-478,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence did not demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant juvenile was "fighting" and thus committed disorderly conduct in violation of Ind. Code § 35-45-1-3, where there was scant evidence in the record that defendant's actions toward a boy were hostile and a great deal of evidence that her actions were not hostile.
|
|||||
| Masterson v. State, No. 49A02-0503-CR-223,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 21, 2006, Decided , March 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained due to warrantless search of his vehicle since he did not show a violation of his rights under Fourth Amendment or Ind. Const. art. I, § 11; police had probable cause to search, the vehicle was readily mobile, and the search was reasonable under the circumstances.
|
|||||
| Bender v. Bender (In re Estate of Bender), No. 53A01-0411-CV-473,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly voided the sale of an estate's business interests by the personal representative to himself because the transactions constituted self-dealing, the personal representative failed to comply with Ind. Code §§ 29-1-15-2, -3, and -8 as to the supervised estate, and he violated his fiduciary duties under Ind. Code § 29-1-13-1.
|
|||||
| Staten v. State, No. 49A05-0509-CR-564,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 22, 2006, Decided , March 22, 2006, Filed.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence sufficiently supported defendant's conviction for carrying a handgun without a license in violation of Ind. Code § 35-47-2-1; Ind. Code § 35-47-1-5 defined a "firearm" to include a weapon that may readily be converted to expel a projectile and, thus, the disassembled gun she had met definition of "firearm" for purpose of her conviction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
