 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hunt v. Martin County Circuit Court (In re Direct Criminal Contempt Proceedings), No. 51A01-0607-CV-274,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 20, 2007, Decided , April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a court clerk allegedly failed to comply with a court order regarding bond money, a direct criminal contempt judgment against him under Ind. Code § 34-47-2-1 was set aside because, inter alia, his conduct did not involve a disturbance that was created by noise or confusion that was manifested by talking, moving about, or by signs or gestures.
|
|||||
| In re H.R.M. v. Manlief, No. 16A04-0610-JV-569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 20, 2007, Decided , April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of motion to modify visitation was reversed because statements by clinical social worker were not admissible under Ind. R. Evid. 803(4), as there was no evidence child was motivated to provide truthful information, nor were they admissible under Ind. R. Evid. 803(6), because the affidavit accompanying the business records was insufficient.
|
|||||
| Luhrsen v. State, No. 15A01-0605-CR-198,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 20, 2007, Decided , April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Enhanced consecutive sentences were proper because, contrary to defendant's argument, Ind. Code § 35-50-2-1.3 did not restrict consecutive sentences to advisory sentences. It was within the trial court's discretion to sentence defendant to enhanced consecutive sentences, and defendant did not established an abuse of that discretion.
|
|||||
| Nolan v. Taylor, No. 51A05-0608-CV-442,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 20, 2007, Decided , April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court had no subject matter jurisdiction over a case in which a candidate challenged the results of a caucus held to appoint a pro tempore court clerk. Ind. Code §§ 3-6-1-13 and 3-6-1-14 gave political party state committees, not individuals, a judicial remedy to enforce compliance with the party's rules or resolutions.
|
|||||
| Palmer v. Comprehensive Neurologic Servs., P.C., No. 32A01-0512-CV-553,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 20, 2007, Decided , April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the settlements served as compensation for the representative's death, and the jury's award of damages against the company and the doctor also served as compensation for damages arising out of the injury of death suffered by the deceased, the trial court erred did not err when it awarded setoff to prevent a double recovery.
|
|||||
| State v. Jackson, No. 29A02-0610-CR-867,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 20, 2007, Decided , April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was acquitted because operating a vehicle after being adjudged an habitual traffic violator under Ind. Code § 9-30-10-16 required that defendant have actual knowledge that his license had been suspended for his habitual traffic violator status (HTV), and defendant rebutted the presumption of knowledge of HTV status under § 9-30-10-16.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
