 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Biddinger v. State, No. 49S05-0608-CR-305,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided, June 20, 2007, Filed.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in not allowing defendant to make a statement in allocution where defendant had made a request prior to sentencing that he be allowed to do so, but the error was harmless; defendant's four-page handwritten statement received as an offer of proof did not contain anything that would have affected defendant's sentence.
|
|||||
| Boyle v. State, No. 49S04-0706-CR-243,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After holding that Blakely claims were not available in a belated appeal under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2 that challenged a pre-Blakely sentence, the Supreme Court of Indiana reversed an appellate court's decision to the contrary and reinstated an inmate's three concurrent 45 year terms for committing three class A felonies.
|
|||||
| Gutermuth v. State, No. 10S01-0608-CR-306,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2 allowed belated appeal of some criminal convictions and sentences, belated appeal of defendant's sentence entered before new constitutional rule in Blakely was announced was not governed by new rule; such late appeals were neither "pending on direct review" nor "not yet final" when new rule was announced.
|
|||||
| Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Dep't, No. 20S05-0703-CV-97,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where late-night storm downed several trees and limbs and county highway crews were still on the job hours after storm passed, the county was entitled to immunity as a matter of law under Ind. Code Ann. § 34-13-3-3(3) in negligence action because facts were sufficient to demonstrate that the losses resulted from temporary conditions due to weather.
|
|||||
| Moshenek v. State, No. 42S04-0706-PC-244,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate convicted of murder was not entitled to post-conviction relief under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2 because although the trial court did not inform the inmate of his right to appeal the sentence at a plea hearing, the inmate was not diligent when he waited eleven yeas to raise a sentencing claim.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. State, No. 71S03-0706-CR-242,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Blakely did not apply to an Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2 belated appeal challenging a pre-Blakely sentence, an inmate who pled guilty to attempted robbery presented no sentencing issue on appeal after he filed a R. 2 appeal.
|
|||||
| Rose v. Mercantile Nat'l Bank of Hammond, No. 56S03-0608-CV-303,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Proceedings supplemental under Ind. R. Trial P. 69 were proper only for actions to enforce and collect existing judgments; thus, a judgment creditor was improperly allowed to amend its complaint to add a new claim, even though it was based on same fraudulent transfer, that allowed for damages treble the amount of original judgment owed by debtor.
|
|||||
| Stockelman v. State, No. 36S00-0608-CR-285,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence of life without parole did not require revision under Ind. R. App. P. 7(B) because the trial court properly found that the aggravating circumstance of killing a 10-year-old child weighed more heavily than proffered mitigators of relatively crime-free life, his plea of guilty, his mental condition, and hardship to his children.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
