 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Christian v. Durm, No. 48A04-0610-CV-610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 23, 2007, Decided , May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8, a trial court had the authority to consider an intervening child care provider's petition for child custody after the parents dismissed their divorce action, and the deplorable home conditions and the child's poor condition proved that it was in the child's best interest to place her with the provider.
|
|||||
| Geiger v. State, No. 31A01-0610-CR-427,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 23, 2007, Decided , May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ind. Code § 35-44-2-3 was a conduct-oriented statute, defendant could not have been convicted of more than one count of impersonating a public servant pursuant to § 35-44-2-3 based on the same occurrence, even if there were multiple victims, defendant's conviction on the second count of impersonating a public servant was vacated.
|
|||||
| Herron v. Anigbo, No. 45A03-0608-CV-378,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 23, 2007, Decided , May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application of "occurrence-based" statute of limitations to patient's malpractice action was unconstitutional. It was not until another doctor informed patient that he had sufficient knowledge to discover malpractice and patient did not have opportunity to bring action before running of limitations period because of corrective procedures required.
|
|||||
| Matthews v. State, No. 27A05-0608-CR-468,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 23, 2007, Decided , May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's threatening and intimidating actions toward two witnesses were relevant and admissible evidence under Ind. R. Evid. 404(b), as they were admissions of guilt and not offered merely to show defendant's propensity to engage in wrongful acts. Jury was correctly instructed on specific intent to kill on part of both principal and accomplice.
|
|||||
| Porter Dev., LLC v. First Nat'l Bank, No. 64S04-0606-CV-236,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, May 23, 2007, Decided , May 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. Code § 28-9-5-3, a bank was entitled to recover costs and expenses, including attorney fees, it incurred in bringing an interpleader. If the deposited funds were insufficient for this purpose, the trial court could impose such costs and expenses upon the unsuccessful claimant whose claims led to the interpleader.
|
|||||
| Krause v. Ind. Univ. - Purdue Univ. at Indianapolis, No. 93A02-0606-EX-488,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, May 24, 2007, Decided , May 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a worker's compensation case, when an employee refused services from her attending physician, the employer was required under Ind. Code § 22-3-3-4 to notify her that such refusal would result in her not being provided pain treatment services from any other physician. Medical treatment was included in "all compensation" under the statute.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
