 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brockmann Enters., LLC v. City of New Haven, No. 02A04-0605-CV-272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's user fee for storm water management was proper because it met all of the substantive criteria of Ind. Code § 8-1.5-5-7 and variance with the statute's procedure was de minimis. The maximum monthly fee for nonresidential property did not violate Ind. Const. art. I, § 23 in that classification applied uniformly to similarly-sized properties.
|
|||||
| Brown v. State, No. 49S05-0612-CR-494,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(a) failed to indicate where the line was to be drawn between trivial and substantial things so that erratic arrests and convictions for trivial acts and omissions would not occur, the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
|
|||||
| Hanninen v. Koch, No. 36A01-0611-CV-503,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort suit, where appellant rejected an estate administrator's qualified settlement offer and a jury found for the administrator, the administrator was properly awarded attorney's fees, costs, and expenses under Ind. Code § 34-50-1-6 because the statute did not violate Ind. Const. art. 1, §§ 12 or 23, regarding open courts and equal treatment.
|
|||||
| Ind. State Univ. v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., No. 93A02-0611-EX-1012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee's probationary one-year appointment as an assistant professor with a university was not renewed, he was not entitled to unemployment benefits under the Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act, because he was not discharged since non-reappointment did not equate to a discharge under the university tenure concept.
|
|||||
| Laney v. State, No. 49A05-0607-CR-369,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amendment changing liability basis for child molestation from principal to accessory was one of form or immaterial defect State could have made any time under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-5(b); State could have proceeded under original information alleging defendant committed offense as principal, yet obtained conviction under accomplice liability theory.
|
|||||
| Peel v. State, No. 54A01-0610-CR-452,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant and his roommate were in custody for purposes of Miranda after admitting that they had committed a criminal offense, for a consent to search a motel room to be valid, pursuant to Ind. Const. art. I, § 11, they were entitled to an advisement of the right to counsel. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Hoffman v. Allen Circuit Court, No. 02S00-0704-OR-161,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's mandamus petition challenging clerk's decision not to withdraw paternity case from judge for failure to rule under Ind. R. Trial P. 53.2 was denied under unique circumstances, including magistrate's order presuming agreement to extend time absent objection and parties' agreement to extensions for filing proposed findings and conclusions.
|
|||||
| T.B. v. Dobson, No. 53A04-0609-CV-533,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the homeowner provided more than "occasional" child care services to the minor, the homeowners' policy was not ambiguous as a careful reading of the policy exclusion and exception, in light of the facts as characterized by the minor who was molested, led to the conclusion that the homeowners were not covered under the policy.
|
|||||
| Thomas-Collins v. State, No. 79A05-0703-CR-176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided, June 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant had failed to respond positively to more lenient punishments in the past, and the trial court properly weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances, her ten-year sentence, consisting of concurrent advisory sentences for burglary, a Class B felony, and possession within 1000 feet of a school, a Class C felony, was appropriate.
|
|||||
| Util. Ctr., Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 02S04-0706-CV-248,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to municipality on its contention that it could acquire part of operations of a privately-owned utility that served part of municipality that was recently annexed; municipality was entitled to do so pursuant to the requirements of Indiana's general eminent domain statute, Ind. Code § 32-11-1.5 et seq.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
