 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Evansville Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Princeton Plan Comm'n, No. 26A05-0506-CV-306,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 19, 2006, Decided , June 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regulation of visibility of signs was a legitimate public interest under Ind. Code § 36-7-4-601(2), an ordinance allowing a plan commission to determine adequate setbacks based on listed criteria was sufficient, and an outdoor advertiser's failure to brief a taking claim due to the setback had amounted to waiver under Ind. R. App. P. 46(A)(8).
|
|||||
| Bonney v. Ind. Fin. Auth., No. 71S00-0606-CV-204,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2006, Decided , June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly determined that the Public Lawsuit Statute, Ind. Code §§ 34-13-5-1 through 34-13-5-12, applied and required several citizens and coalition to post a bond or have that part of their complaint to which statute applied dismissed, as Indiana Finance Authority was a municipal corporation and lawsuit at issue was a "public lawsuit."
|
|||||
| Dewbrew v. Dewbrew, No. 41A04-0510-CV-602,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, June 20, 2006, Decided , June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a settlement agreement combined rehabilitative alimony and child support, because the child support was taxable under the agreement, under the best interests of the children standard, modification was required to re-evaluate child support and the property distribution under the agreement.
|
|||||
| First Student, Inc. v. Estate of Meece, No. 49A02-0507-CV-644,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, June 20, 2006, Decided , June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death suit, a child was a "dependent child" under Ind. Code Ann. § 34-23-1-1 because her paternity had been established under Ind. Code Ann. § 29-1-2-7 through a workers' compensation minor's compromise petition. The compromise action was a judicial proceeding, and it, like § 29-1-2-7, required corroboration of the mother's testimony.
|
|||||
| Hall v. State, No. 02S05-0503-PC-104,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 20, 2006, Decided , June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's challenge to his guilty plea on grounds he was not advised of his Boykin rights was properly denied. That guilty plea record was lost and could not be reconstructed did not entitle him to relief, as under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 1, § 5, he had burden of proving by preponderance of the evidence that his rights were violated.
|
|||||
| Shouse v. State, No. 15A05-0505-CR-287,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 20, 2006, Decided , June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was error not to give an instruction under Ind. Const. art. I, § 19 during the habitual offender phase of trial, reversal was not warranted. The trial court had given the instruction that same day at the guilt phase, the jury had a copy of the instruction, and defense counsel had read the instruction to the jury during closing argument.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
