 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hamilton v. State, No. 37A03-0507-CR-345,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 24, 2007, Decided , April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where court warned defendant, whose counsel had withdrawn, to promptly obtain new counsel and that it was not inclined to grant any further continuances, it did not abuse its discretion under Ind. R. Trial P. 53.5 by denying her a continuance two days before trial, as any prejudice that inured to her was caused by her own delay in hiring counsel.
|
|||||
| In re Gosnell, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0608-DI-307,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 24, 2007, Decided , April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney twice pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, he violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b), and Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 11.1(a)(2); therefore, the attorney was suspended for 90 days, stayed for six months of conditional probation.
|
|||||
| Irish v. Woods, No. 49A02-0605-CV-439,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 24, 2007, Decided , April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff's claim to recover on a guaranty was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff, as a borrower and accommodation party to the parties' LLC on a note, was both a primary obligor and the principal surety on the note; defendant's liability was secondary to that of both the LLC and plaintiff.
|
|||||
| Rosendaul v. State, No. 57A04-0607-CR-405,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 24, 2007, Decided , April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not violate defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in questioning him under Ind. R. Evid. 614 about filings that contradicted his testimony that he always wrote dates in "military style." The questioning gave defendant the opportunity to explain the contradiction and aided the trial court in ascertaining the truth.
|
|||||
| Row v. Holt, No. 15S01-0606-CV-239,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 24, 2007, Decided , April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alleged victim's affidavit stating that plaintiff battered her was insufficient under Ind. Code § 35-33-1-1 to provide officer with probable cause to arrest plaintiff as alleged victim did not complain of pain or appear to be injured and officer knew of animosity between them. Therefore, dismissal of plaintiff's false arrest claim was improper.
|
|||||
| Row v. Holt, No. 15S01-0606-CV-239,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 24, 2007, Decided , April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit for false arrest and false imprisonment, summary judgment was properly granted for a deputy sheriff who arrested plaintiff after seeing him struggle with a police officer. The deputy reasonably believed that he had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, even if it were found that the arrest by the officer was not based on probable cause.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co., No. 87A01-0608-CV-367,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 26, 2007, Decided , April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A telephone company did not have a duty to inspect its property solely to discover possible hazards. Thus, when a subcontractor had no evidence that the company knew there was anything wrong with a telephone pole, telephone line, or clamp, nut, and bolt before the subcontractor fell, the evidence was insufficient to prove breach of duty.
|
|||||
| Rich v. State, No. 49A04-0608-CR-411,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, April 26, 2007, Decided , April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At a public intoxication trial, a deputy's testimony about defendant's condition should have been suppressed. The detective who had stopped defendant had not testified; thus, there was no basis to hold that the detective had a reasonable suspicion to stop defendant as required by the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Stephenson v. State, No. 87S00-0106-PD-285,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, April 26, 2007, Decided , April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appearing in visible restraints was inherently prejudicial, if issue was raised on appeal, reversal would have been required unless State proved error did not affect result. Even if counsel's failure to object to belt fell below prevailing professional norms, inmate failed to establish reasonable probability objection would have prevailed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
