 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bradbury v. Comprehensive Mental Health Servs. (In re Bradbury), No. 18A04-0506-CV-355,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the former patient argued that there was insufficient evidence that he was gravely disabled under Ind. Code § 12-7-2-96 to involuntarily commit the patient, the argument failed. A doctor presented six current factors that the patient was gravely disabled at the time of the hearing, and the appellate court refused to reweigh the evidence.
|
|||||
| Allen v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 66A04-0506-CV-364,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a bank orally agreed to let a purchaser buy, from a debtor, collateral the bank had filed financing statements on, the bank's perfected security interest trumped the oral contract, but fact issues existed as to the buyer's entitlement to damages, under Ind. Code § 26-1-9.1-609, for the bank's breach of the peace in repossessing the collateral.
|
|||||
| Anthony v. Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Group, No. 49A02-0503-CV-209,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's finding of an allegedly injured party's attorneys' actual authority to settle his claim against his insurer was supported by substantial evidence of probative value, and, therefore, was not clearly erroneous, as all his attorneys agreed he authorized the settlement and the party presented no contrary evidence, other than his denial.
|
|||||
| Corcoran v. State, No. 02S00-0508-PD-350,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since an amended petition had to be predicated on a timely filed original petition in addition to arising out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as that originally proffered, and the prisoner's petition failed to meet that standard, the subsequent attempt at pursuing post-conviction relief was untimely and ineffective.
|
|||||
| Dawson v. Newman, No. 49A05-0504-CV-206,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A suit for false imprisonment and negligence in which a former prisoner alleged that a judge had failed to send certified copies of a corrected sentencing order to corrections officials under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-16 was properly dismissed against the judge on judicial immunity grounds. Compliance with the statute was a case processing function.
|
|||||
| Schriber v. Anonymous, No. 49S04-0501-CV-30,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Widow's appeal was dismissed as premature because the trial court did not dismiss her malpractice complaint when it found that defendant health care provider was a qualified provider and ruled that it would not act until medical review of her proposed complaint was completed under Ind. Code § 34-18-8-7 of the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act.
|
|||||
| State v. Campos, No. 23A01-0509-CR-417,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's appeal of the dismissal of Count I of an information against defendant juvenile was dismissed because Ind. Code § 35-38-4-2(1) did not permit an appeal where only one count of an information or an indictment had been dismissed; the State could only appeal where the entire information or indictment had been dismissed.
|
|||||
| Weaver v. State, No. 78A01-0506-CR-281,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, April 18, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the trial court was obliged to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the appellate court could not say it erred in finding neither and imposing the presumptive sentence for defendant's conviction under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
