 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Banks v. State, No. 57A03-0506-CR-280,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of sentence modification was not an abuse of discretion where defendant presented only self-serving statements of good conduct and remorse, but trial court abused its discretion in assessing public defender fee against defendant as he had been found indigent and in that case, Ind. Code § 33-19-2-3 did not allow imposition of the fee.
|
|||||
| Beard v. Dominguez, No. 82A01-0507-CV-300,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A patient represented by counsel had not shown good cause under Ind. Code § 34-18-10-14 for failing to timely submit her evidence to state-appointed medical review panel because she did not timely assert indigence or request assistance and because the provision of public funds to the patient for presenting evidence to panel could not be justified.
|
|||||
| Emmons v. State, No. 49A02-0506-CR-527,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the original information against defendant had not been file-stamped and therefore was not properly filed under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-1, the trial court did not have jurisdiction and any judgment rendered would have been void for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, there was no double jeopardy violation when the charges were refiled.
|
|||||
| Fultz v. State, No. 53A01-0410-CR-456,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's right to an early trial pursuant to Ind. R. Crim. P. 4(B) was not violated when State dismissed original arson charge against him a few days before trial and then filed a murder charge against him; State was not trying to thwart his early trial right, but was promptly moving forward with murder charge when it had sufficient evidence.
|
|||||
| Spann v. State, No. 71A03-0511-CR-541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant washed a 13-year-old's penis while the child was in the shower, and at another time touched his penis in bed, there was sufficient evidence that defendant had touched the child to arouse or gratify himself under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b). Such intent could be inferred from the evidence that defendant intentionally touched the penis.
|
|||||
| State Farm Ins. v. Freeman, No. 87A04-0511-CV-658,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court erred in denying insurance company's request for a jury trial in a small claims action. The company complied with the requirements of former Ind. Code § 33-5-45.5-17 (now Ind. Code § 33-33-87-17) and therefore, the superior court was required to transfer the case to the regular court docket.
|
|||||
| Varner v. State, No. 46A05-0511-PC-676,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court's decision in an inmate's direct appeal of a claimed sentencing error became the law of the case and therefore, a post-conviction court properly dismissed the inmate's post-conviction petition, which essentially asserted the same contention of sentencing error.
|
|||||
| White v. State, No. 45A04-0508-CR-494,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court had to hold the trial court abused its discretion in ordering some of defendant's sentences served consecutively since its implicit balancing of the aggravators and mitigators led it to impose sentences shorter than the presumptive. The sentence on remand could be the same sentence if supported with the proper findings.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, No. 30A01-0508-CR-393,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, May 26, 2006, Decided , May 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dog sniff search, conducted at end of traffic stop, violated Fourth Amendment and Ind. Const. art. I, § 11 because traffic stop was prolonged beyond time reasonably required to complete it. Traffic warnings, issued at time dog arrived, were issued some time after they had been written. There was no reasonable suspicion to extend search.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
