 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Washburn v. State, No. 29A02-0609-CR-805,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 26, 2007, Decided, June 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from a warrantless trash pull because a detective's search and seizure of defendant's trash can was supported by reasonable suspicion, under Ind. Const. art. I, § 11, because the totality of the circumstances established a concerned citizen as a reliable source.
|
|||||
| Webb v. Webb, No. 49A04-0612-CV-700,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 26, 2007, Decided, June 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due to a father's insistence on educational and behavioral testing, a substantial change in the children's school environment occurred; therefore, pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-17-2-8(1)-(8), the trial court properly found that it was in the children's best interest to modify custody by awarding the father sole legal and physical custody over them.
|
|||||
| Windhorst v. State, No. 49S04-0701-CR-32,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 26, 2007, Decided, June 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence was affirmed because, although trial court erred in failing to enter sentencing statement in imposing felony sentence, appellate courts had option to remand for clarification or new sentencing determination. Intermediate appellate court exercised its option, reviewed the sentence under Ind. R. App. P. 7(B), and declined to revise it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
