 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Happe, Supreme Court Cause No. 82S00-0704-DI-169,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 4, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney's continued practice of law during the pendency of a disciplinary investigation or proceeding might pose a substantial threat of harm to the public, clients, potential clients, or the administration of justice, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(11.1)(b) the attorney was suspended pendente lite.
|
|||||
| In re Levy, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0701-DI-19,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 4, 2007, Decided, June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8(c) by preparing a will for a non-relative that gave the attorney and his wife a substantial gift, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(11), the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 60 days.
|
|||||
| Lindsey v. De Groot Dairy LLC, No. 35A04-0608-CV-461,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 4, 2007, Decided , June 4, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to dismiss a petition for judicial review because plaintiffs had served the petition upon the attorney who had represented an LLC in an administrative proceeding and not upon the LLC itself. Service under Ind. R. Trial P. 5 satisfied Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-8.
|
|||||
| Hunter v. Klimowicz, No. 45A03-0606-CV-263,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 5, 2007, Decided , June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly found that a settlor lacked the capacity to execute an irrevocable trust under Ind. Code § 30-4-2-10(c). Her treating physician testified that at the time she executed the trust, the settlor, who had had a stroke, would not be able to fully understand a complicated legal document and was affected by medication as well.
|
|||||
| Long v. State, No. 76A05-0607-CR-387,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 5, 2007, Decided , June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence defendant offered to sell products, informed buyers he had products, received payment, and never shipped products supported corrupt business influence conviction. Counsel's failure to raise issue of defendant's mental health problems was not unreasonable as, inter alia, there was no evidence he was unable to distinguish right from wrong.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. v. Curtis, No. 01A04-0610-CV-617,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 5, 2007, Decided , June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When insurers did not include a trampoline exclusion in a main policy with other exclusions, but in a form entitled "Supplemental Extensions," with nothing clarifying the separate exclusions, the placement of the trampoline exclusion was inconspicuous as a matter of law, creating an ambiguity. Thus, the insurers were required to provide coverage.
|
|||||
| Norwood Promotional Prods. v. Roller, No. 49A04-0608-CV-473,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 5, 2007, Decided , June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employment agreement was unambiguous and made no reference to a stock plan and a stock award agreement, the employer did not demonstrate that the parties agreed to submit securities disputes to arbitration. Thus, the employer could not compel arbitration as to the securities fraud claims under Ind. Code § 34-57-2-3.
|
|||||
| Perry v. State, No. 49A05-0609-CR-508,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 5, 2007, Decided , June 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A new trial was required. The trial court had improperly declared an impasse and invoked Ind. Jury R. 28; moreover, in responding to a jury question, it had substituted defendant's name for a witness's, possibly giving the impression that defendant had admitted firing shots, and it could not be said that the error had not influenced the verdict.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
