 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Meisler v. Gull Oil, Inc., No. 82A01-0512-CV-572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court's denial of an action for partial cancellation of an oil and gas lease was affirmed as the lessors failed to establish that the habendum clause of the lease was breached; thus, a partial cancellation of the lease under Ind. Code § 32-23-8-1 was improper. Further, the lessee's conduct satisfied the implied covenant of reasonable development.
|
|||||
| Myers v. State, No. 02A03-0507-CR-327,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly ordered defendant to pay restitution, under Ind. Code § 35-50-5-3, to his uncle's estate after defendant pleaded guilty to perjury regarding his disposition of estate funds. However, the order was remanded for the award to be offset by the amount that the estate recouped from defendant in a civil judgment regarding the matter.
|
|||||
| Saunders v. State, No. 49A05-0509-CR-550,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aggravated battery conviction, under Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.5, was affirmed as the prosecution met its burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt defendant's mistake of fact defense under Ind. Code § 35-41-3-7, and the court's evidentiary rulings under Ind. R. Evid. 608 and 609 did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
|
|||||
| Stanley v. State, No. 92A03-0512-CR-600,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's appeal was dismissed without prejudice to defendant's right to raise the issue that he contested concerning his habitual offender determination, as opposed to the sentence imposed upon that determination, in a subsequent postconviction proceeding as defendant's appeal followed a guilty plea and an admission of being a habitual offender.
|
|||||
| Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, No. 06S01-0503-CV-124,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 13, 2006, Decided , June 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lot's subdivider and seller was not responsible for an installment of property taxes based on the lot's first separate assessment. The purchase agreement unambiguously made it responsible only for the first installment after the closing on taxes due and payable at the closing, which was based on the whole tract's assessment the year before.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
