 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Armstrong v. State, No. 26S05-0606-CR-212,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 15, 2006, Decided , June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Supreme Court of Indiana denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge against him of failure to stop after an accident resulting in death because defendant, who left the scene of an accident resulting in death, could be held criminally responsible under Ind. Code 9-26-1-1 even though his vehicle did not strike the injured or deceased party.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. State, No. 12S02-0606-CR-213,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 15, 2006, Decided , June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No collision was required for a finding that an "accident" had occurred where one vehicle had driven off the road to avoid another, and retroactive application of this definition in an Ind. Code § 9-26-1-1 failure to stop case was appropriate because defendant knew that his failure was criminalized.
|
|||||
| Wells v. State, No. 53A01-0405-CR-229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 15, 2006, Decided , June 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Challenge to jury venire lacked merit as defendant failed to meet burden of demonstrating university students constituted distinctive group within community for purposes of cross-section analysis. While it was improper for prosecutor to express personal opinion as to merits of case, error did not require reversal as defendant suffered no prejudice.
|
|||||
| Fuller v. Meloy, No. 32A01-0511-CV-521,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly concluded that prisoners were not entitled to six months rather than three months sentence credit for completion of vocational programs. Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3(d)(5) explicitly allowed for up to six months credit at the discretion of the department of corrections, it did not require six months of credit.
|
|||||
| Logan v. Royer, No. 53A01-0409-CV-384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circuit court's alteration of the time for a response to a motion for summary judgment under Ind. R. Trial P. 56(I) was an abuse of discretion where the party had not yet filed its motion for summary judgment, because the court could not have adequately evaluated whether an alteration of time was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Marshall & Ilsley Trust Co., N.A. v. Woodward, No. 82A01-0508-CV-384,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case of first impression, appellate court found that named remote contingent beneficiary of a trust was entitled to accounting pursuant to Ind. Code § 30-4-3-6(b)(7) but also added that legitimate cost and privacy concerns limited right to accounting to remote contingent beneficiaries, such as him, who were actually named in trust document.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Willard Library v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Pub. Library, No. 82A01-0510-CV-479,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Private Donation Library Statute required a taxing authority to establish the levy amount and to levy that amount after a private donation library submitted its budget, even though the proposed tax levy was within the range of Ind. Code § 36-12-7-8(b)(1), because a private entity could not levy a tax..
|
|||||
| State v. Litchfield, No. 50A03-0602-CR-58,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mere fact that defendants' names appeared on list of recipients of materials from a company whose shipping containers showed up at a number of marijuana-growing operations was insufficient standing alone to provide the articulable individualized grounds required by Ind. Const. art. I, § 11 for a warrantless search of defendants' garbage.
|
|||||
| Title Servs., LLC v. Womacks, No. 49A02-0510-CV-983,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Title insurer's contention that a county auditor had negligently failed to process homestead exemptions and mortgage deductions was actually a claim for a return of overpayments, and was subject to the jurisdictional requirements of Ind. Code § 33-26-3-1, including exhaustion of remedies under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-4 through -8.
|
|||||
| Wilcox Lumber Co. v. Andersons, Inc., No. 08A020509-CV-917,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, June 16, 2006, Decided , June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lumber company waived any factual issues regarding an award in a slander of title action by not objecting to evidence designated by property owner in support of the attorney fees it was awarded. Further, as trial court directed the owner's counsel to submit the designation of evidence, fees for time spent preparing submission were properly awarded.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
