 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alberici Constructors, Inc. v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., No. 94S00-0612-CQ-488,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a steel fabricator was a "third-tier" claimant that did not share privity of contract with the general contractor on a state highway project, or with any subcontractor, it was not covered by Ind. Code Ann. § 8-23-9-9 (2007) and thus was not entitled to payment under a surety bond issued pursuant to § 8-23-9-9.
|
|||||
| Baer v. State, No. 48S00-0404-DP-181,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of the nature of the offense shown by the defendant's brutal and savage slaying of a four-year-old child and her young mother, and the lack of demonstrated virtuous character in the defendant, the court declined to intervene in the jury's determination under Ind. Code § 35-50-2-9(e) that the death sentence was appropriate for defendant.
|
|||||
| Cannon v. State, No. 49S05-0705-CR-210,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge's reference to note made by prior judge who conducted sentencing in defendant's previous case was not an improper ex parte communication under Ind. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3B(8) because trial judge was performing functions with respect to both of defendant's cases, and thus prior case file was properly before court as part of record.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Jones, No. 03A01-0609-CV-375,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Wife's Ind. R. Trial P. 59(B), (C) motion to correct error upon the entry of a divorce decree was proper. Trial court did not commit reversible error by failing to specify reasons for granting relief, as special findings were only needed if trial court granted new trial, and husband did not prove that grant of motion caused a flagrant injustice.
|
|||||
| Kubsch v. State, No. 71S00-0507-DP-333,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court did not err during defendant's trial on charges alleging that he murdered three people when it denied defendant's request for special prosecutor, even though county attorney who prosecuted the case had represented a witness who testified at defendant's trial, because defendant did not show that prosecutor had a conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| Perez v. State, No. 12A05-0701-CR-22,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant could waive his right to direct appeal of his sentence in his plea agreement, the trial court did not err in denying his Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2 motion for a belated direct appeal without a hearing.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State, No. 49S04-0705-PC-209,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although generating new legal theories was good for the system, not doing so was not a violation of the Sixth Amendment; therefore, because defendant did not demonstrate unreasonable performance by his trial and/or appellate counsel, his petition for postconviction relief was properly denied.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gutierrez, No. 45S03-0608-CV-302,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. R. Trial P. 42(B), a trial court properly denied a driver's request that claims against him be bifurcated from those against driver's insurer where driver did not show that actual prejudice would result, and, considering interests of convenience and economy, trial court acted within its purview to deny request on grounds of timeliness.
|
|||||
| Walton v. State, No. 48A02-0609-CR-819,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 22, 2007, Decided , May 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant's sole contention was that his plea was involuntary, it followed that no potential relief could be afforded by a direct appeal; rather, the remedy was exclusively through Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 1.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
