 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Hammar v. Hammar, No. 56S03-0511-CV-587,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 23, 2006, Decided , May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Removal statute, Ind. Code § 29-1-10-6, did not apply when court replaced decedent's former wife with his widow as special administrator of his estate; court only reconsidered its first ruling, as it had power and discretion to do in pending cases. As former wife was appointed ex parte, four days after the death, court did not abuse its discretion.
|
|||||
| Midtown Chiropractic v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., No. 49S02-0503-CV-00096,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 23, 2006, Decided , May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since Indiana had a long-standing prohibition of the assignment of personal injury actions and the legislature only created liens benefiting hospitals and ambulance operators, a chiropractic clinic could not enforce an assignment of proceeds from a personal injury claim.
|
|||||
| State v. Spillers, No. 48S02-0501-CR-5,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 23, 2006, Decided , May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Hearsay statements did not show informant's credibility under Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(b)(1); they were not declarations against penal interest when he faced no prosecution. No probable cause thus existed, but evidence seized under a search warrant was wrongly suppressed; officers relied on warrant in objective good faith under Ind. Code § 35-37-4-5.
|
|||||
| Whatley v. State, No. 49A02-0509-CR-897,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 23, 2006, Decided , May 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In probation revocation proceedings, the trial court did not err in taking judicial notice of the probable cause affidavit. While the probable cause affidavit was hearsay under Ind. R. Evid. 801(c), Ind. R. Evid. 101(c)(2) stated the rules of evidence did not apply in probation proceedings. The affidavit bore substantial indicia of reliability.
|
|||||
| Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. v. Town of Plainfield, No. 32A01-0507-CV-296,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, May 24, 2006, Decided , May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to a town because a restaurant's freestanding highway identification sign lost its nonconforming use status when the restaurant had a contractor remove the sign from its pole to perform maintenance on the sign before replacing the sign. The movement caused the sign to lose its nonconforming use status.
|
|||||
| Earlywine v. State, No. 48A02-0510-CR-930,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 24, 2006, Decided , May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of intimidation, a violation of Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1, as a Class A misdemeanor because defendant communicated a threat with the intent that another person engage in conduct against his will when defendant phoned another man and said the other man would "get it" if he did not allow defendant to see his wife.
|
|||||
| K.T.P. v. Atchison, No. 47A04-0510-JV-604,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 24, 2006, Decided , May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. Code § 31-14-17-1, "postnatal care," which referred to care of infant immediately after birth, did not apply to subsequent care of a child who was re-hospitalized 34 days following a normal delivery. Trial court properly ordered that a father who agreed to pay birthing expenses was not liable for costs from child's re-hospitalization.
|
|||||
| Trimble v. State, No. 40S01-0602-CR-64,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 24, 2006, Decided , May 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of a dog's starved appearance, injured leg, and frost bitten extremities was sufficient to allow the trial judge to infer that defendant failed to feed and care for the dog; the burden of proof was not shifted when the trial court commented that the State proved its case before the defense was presented.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
