 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jones v. State, No. 49A02-0510-CR-1018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ineffective assistance claim failed as respondent failed to show reasonable probability result of contempt proceeding would have been different had prosecutor not acted as both witness and prosecutor at contempt hearing. Contempt finding was upheld as record was devoid of evidence respondent was receiving threats or was in fear for her life.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Schachel (In re P.W.J.), No. 49A02-0509-JV-861,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father in a child support arrearage case did not show that his due process rights pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Ind. Const. art. I, § 12; since he failed to demonstrate that the income withholding order entered against him terminated or became inactive, he did not show that Ind. Code § 31-16-15-7 procedural notice requirements applied.
|
|||||
| Kho v. Pennington, No. 72A04-0507-CV-373,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to attorney who sued doctor for medical malpractice but later found out that he had to be dismissed since he was not duty at the time the patient was treated, as she had probable cause to sue him and there was no private action available to him for the attorney's Ind. Code § 34-18-8-7 violation.
|
|||||
| Skeffington v. Bush, No. 45A05-0510-CV-577,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 5, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused discretion by transferring venue as preferred venue for contractor's breach of contract claim against subcontractor was, under Ind. R. Trial P. 75(A)(2), in county where land was located; contractor alleged subcontractor's quality of work on land was poor so sufficient nexus existed for contractor's claims to relate to land.
|
|||||
| Bankhead v. Walker, No. 45A03-0506-CV-248,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, May 9, 2006, Decided , May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After an employee tested positive for marijuana, a civil service commission did not err in admitting into evidence drug test results that were not certified under Ind. Code § 34-43-1-7. Due process required that the employee have notice and an opportunity to respond; it did not require more formality in employment proceedings.
|
|||||
| State v. Harmon, No. 09A02-0508-CR-789,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 9, 2006, Decided , May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an officer searched defendant's trash in good faith reliance on current applicable case law, and, in searching defendant's home pursuant to a search warrant based on evidence seized in the trash search, the officer relied in good faith on a valid warrant, it was error, under Ind. Const. art. I, § 11, to suppress evidence seized from the home.
|
|||||
| Young v. State, No. 33A01-0508-CR-402,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, May 9, 2006, Decided , May 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of residential entry because a serious evidentiary dispute existed and thus, the trial court should have allowed defendant's jury request to include criminal trespass as a lesser included offense of residential entry.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
