 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| GPI at Danville Crossing, L.P. v. W. Cent. Conservancy Dist., No. 32A01-0609-CV-395,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 6, 2007, Decided , June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conservancy district's classification of an apartment complex as a residential user in determining sewer rates was not arbitrary or capricious, as a resolution defined a residential user as including "all dwelling units." It was error to compound penalties under Ind. Code § 36-9-23-31, though, as the statute did not provide for compounding.
|
|||||
| Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Auditor & Treasurer , No. 34A02-0608-CV-679,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 6, 2007, Decided , June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court rejected a mortgagee's argument that Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24-7(b) violated due process because it did not designate mortgagees as claimants. The tax sale statutes were not designed to protect those who received actual notice of a tax sale, as the mortgagee had, but then did nothing else to protect their interest in the property.
|
|||||
| Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Random Antics, LLC, No. 18A05-0605-CV-233,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 6, 2007, Decided , June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mobile home was personal property under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-1-11(a)(4), not a "building or fixture situated on the land" under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-1-15. Thus, it was not part of a lot that was sold at a tax sale, and a mortgagee was entitled to possession of the mobile home through its recorded lien on the certificate of title.
|
|||||
| Mustafa Nur v. State, No. 49A02-0606-CR-486,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 6, 2007, Decided , June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the record did not indicate that defendant, who never asked for an interpreter, was unable to effectively participate in his defense because of the alleged difficulty with English, as he indicated he understood everything which was stated to him, the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Robert Lynn Co. v. Town of Clarksville, No. 10A04-0603-CV-133,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 6, 2007, Decided , June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting town's motion to correct error to extent of finding town zoning appeals board did not issue valid conditional approval of property owner's application for development standards variance from zoning ordinance; no timely request for review was made pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1003 and, thus, alleged error was waived.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Hays, No. 72A01-0607-CV-294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 6, 2007, Decided , June 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An individual who was both a deputy sheriff and a county commissioner was not holding two lucrative offices in violation of Ind. Const. art. II, § 9. Deputy sheriffs were not holders of a lucrative office, but employees; their duties were imposed by contract, and they were subject to the supervision and control of the sheriff.
|
|||||
| Campos v. State, No. 45A03-0605-CR-211,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 7, 2007, Decided , June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress because defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of the car in which he was a passenger when the car was stopped; defendant could not show that he had been given permission to use the car and did not show he had expectation of privacy of car's trunk where drugs were found.
|
|||||
| Carlson v. Sweeney, Dabagia, Donoghue, Thorne, Janes & Pagos, No. 46A05-0602-CV-94,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 7, 2007, Decided , June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice suit, the language of a will indicating that the trustee of a testamentary trust could pay sums from the principal as the trustee deemed necessary for the beneficiaries' medical care, comfort, maintenance, or welfare did not create an ascertainable standard and created a general power of appointment under 26 U.S.C.S. § 2041.
|
|||||
| Scott v. State, No. 48A05-0609-CR-527,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 7, 2007, Decided , June 7, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Money laundering and forgery convictions were supported by, inter alia, involvement in other similar schemes and admission he had no connection with payor of check. There was no double jeopardy violation as presentation of check to bank supported forgery conviction and agreement to receive and deposit check supported money laundering conviction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
