 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Beaman v. Beaman, No. 55A05-0506-CV-351,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying a husband's motion to reconsider the entry of a summary dissolution of the parties' marriage pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-15-2-13, as the trial court erred in holding that it did not have the authority to consider whether the terms of a separation agreement were void and ambiguous.
|
|||||
| Rood v. Mobile Lithotripter of Ind., Ltd., No. 84A04-0506-CV-363,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted a hospital's summary judgment motion in a patient's negligence action, as the patient failed to designate specific evidence in opposition to the hospital's motion for summary judgment, as the patient did not specify the evidence it relied on in opposition to the hospital's motion in violation of Ind. R. Trial P. 56(H).
|
|||||
| Singh v. Singh, No. 53A01-0501-CV-40,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded as the dissolution court had jurisdiction to address the husband's request for clarification of a prior judgment adopting an agreed entry of judgment in a divorce. However, the court erred in interpreting the language in that agreed entry to determine the husband's obligations under the agreed entry.
|
|||||
| State v. Lefevers, No. 79A02-0510-CR-996,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 27, 2006, Decided , March 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was erroneously granted where officer did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; officer corroborated anonymous tip after observing defendant's eyes were bloodshot and speech was slurred and thus, obtained reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that warranted seizure.
|
|||||
| Allen v. State, No. 79A02-0512-CR-1184,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable inference for purposes of Ind. Code § 9-26-1-2 that defendant knew that another car was damaged in an accident where the other driver wrote down defendant's license number and immediately drove to a police station, where an officer saw damage to her car.
|
|||||
| Ross v. State, No. 18A02-0506-CR-574,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there were multiple factors supporting an officer's stop of defendant, including, his being in a high crime area, his making a transaction, his speeding off in a different direction, and his carrying something unusual in his hand, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress as there was no Fourth Amendment violation.
|
|||||
| Whited v. Whited, No. 34A02-0507-CV-626,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, March 28, 2006, Decided , March 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive child support modification and visitation credit was proper as mother and father had implied contract allowing children to live with father and for him to pay less support; especially where mother delayed 10 years after emancipation before bringing action; delay justified denial of prejudgment interest under Ind. Code § 31-16-12-2.
|
|||||
| Helms v. Carmel High Sch. Voc. Bldg. Trades Corp., No. 29A04-0510-CV-613,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Building permit did not evince intent by general contractor to assume duty of care to subcontractor's employee. Employee did not demonstrate an exception to general rule regarding principal's nonliability for negligence of independent contractor applied, so summary judgment for the general contractor was proper in employee's suit.
|
|||||
| Keller v. Keller (In re M.K.), No. 89A05-0502-CV-105,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ind. Code § 29-3-9-9(a) required payment of attorney's fees upon trial court's decision to grant son's petition for guardianship, so trial court erred by failing to award the son attorney's fees. Death of ward following judgment for appointment of a guardian and voiding the ward's power of attorney presented only moot questions on appeal.
|
|||||
| Welches v. State, No. 45A04-0506-CR-338,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, March 29, 2006, Decided , March 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court should have given the inmate a chance to show that, pursuant to Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2, § 1, he was not at fault in failing to challenge his sentence on appeal. The trial court failed to advise him of his right to challenge his sentence on appeal. The inmate asserted that counsel failed to inform him of this as well.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
