 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Miller v. State, No. 18A02-0506-CR-501,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While defendant's consent to a search was invalid as he had not been advised of his right to counsel, it did not give rise to a reversal under Ind. Const. art. I, § 11 or U.S. Const. amend. IV since probable cause existed for the police to search his vehicle as the officer detected the odor of marijuana.
|
|||||
| Ray v. State, No. 27A05-0508-CR-471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court erred in defendant's case, where he was charged with Class B felony unlawful possession of firearm by serious violent felon in violation of Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5, in instructing that he had prior robbery conviction, error was harmless; conviction was clearly sustained by evidence, and instruction did not likely impact verdict.
|
|||||
| Seals v. State, No. 09A02-0505-CR-374,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appellate brief filed by a public defender stating three possible issues for appeal but not providing any argument or authority and also stating that any appeal was frivolous was deemed inadequate to protect defendant's rights to competent and zealous representation under Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 and 1.3.
|
|||||
| Wishard Mem. Hosp. v. Kerr, No. 49A02-0508-CV-793,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in concluding that a nurse was not an employee of a hospital and, therefore, her negligence suit against the hospital was not barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Worker's Compensation Act, Ind. Code § 22-3-2-6, since the nurse was employed by a temporary staffing agency with only a four week term at the hospital.
|
|||||
| Charter One Mortg. Corp. v. Condra, No. 49A05-0501-CV-30,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied a bank's motion to dismiss a class action complaint challenging the bank's charging of document preparation fees for documents prepared by non-lawyers because Indiana did not limit or prohibit national banks from charging non-interest fees and was, thus, not preempted by federal banking law.
|
|||||
| In re N.R.R.L., No. 50A03-0508-JV-372,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the legal father of a child, a boyfriend was a necessary party to a paternity action brought by the biological father. However, any error arising from the failure to name the boyfriend as a party was remedied since the trial court allowed him to intervene. Thus, the paternity petition did state a claim for which relief could be granted.
|
|||||
| J. S. v. Ctr. for Behavioral Health, No. 53A04-0509-CV-563,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's conclusion patient was gravely disabled was supported by evidence patient was in danger of coming to harm because patient had substantial impairment or obvious deterioration of judgment, reasoning or behavior that resulted in inability to function independently. Finding benefits of medication outweighed harm was supported by evidence.
|
|||||
| Shannon v. Shannon, No. 84A01-0505-CV-233,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a husband did not present any evidence regarding what portion of a workers' compensation award was not marital property, he could not overcome the strong presumption that the disposition was correct. Moreover, any error was invited as he included his total worker's compensation award in the list of marital property on his property worksheet.
|
|||||
| Walker v. Emplrs Ins. of Wausau, No. 45A03-0505-CV-224,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, May 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improper as to an employee's uninsured motorist claim against his employer's insurer's policy because the spray of gravel from a pick-up truck onto his truck was indirect contact that brought the occurrence within the uninsured motorist provision.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
