 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Akers v. Akers, No. 46A05-0601-CV-29,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order modifying child custody, child support, and parenting time was reversed because wife repudiated settlement agreement before husband's attorney presented agreement to trial court for approval and agreement was neither presented to trial court in written form nor orally recited in open court, as required by Ind. Code § 31-15-2-17.
|
|||||
| Haas v. State, No. 15S01-0606-CR-231,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant, who pled guilty, denied being involved in any rehearsal of the burglary, this finding by the trial court in support of an aggravating factor that helped to enhance defendant's sentence violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely, as the fact was neither admitted by defendant nor found by a jury.
|
|||||
| Money Store Inv. Corp. v. Summers, No. 02S03-0508-CV-355,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a first mortgagee assigned its interest in mortgages with "dragnet" clauses to an assignee, who had a judgment lien against the mortgagors, the assignee was not entitled to priority over a second mortgagee. The first mortgagee and the mortgagors did not intend the mortgages to secure a later debt owed by the mortgagors to a third party.
|
|||||
| Neff v. State, No. 12S02-0606-CR-232,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State could prove no set of facts in support of sentencing aggravators challenged by a criminal defendant after he had pleaded guilty in exchange for a lesser charge and use and derivative immunity, resentencing without a remand by the Court of Appeals based on the trial court's use of the immunized testimony at sentencing was proper.
|
|||||
| Page v. Page, No. 75A03-0601-CV-30,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in granting a father's motion to modify child support under Ind. Code § 31-16-8-1 when it found that he had lost his job and had taken a job for lesser pay. Furthermore, the income verification provisions of Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(B)(2) were not mandatory, merely a reminder to trial courts to verify incomes.
|
|||||
| R.T.B.H., Inc. v. Simon Prop. Group, No. 41A01-0512-CV-551,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A subcontractor that did work on a store being constructed in a shopping mall under a lease did not have a mechanic's lien against the mall owner because the owner had not actively consented to the work. The owner had no interaction with the subcontractor, its approval of a plan was perfunctory, and it did not directly benefit from the store.
|
|||||
| Rainey v. Nat'l Check Bureau, Inc., No. 49A05-0603-CV-109,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, June 27, 2006, Decided , June 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an assignee filed suit against a credit card debtor, the trial court properly denied the debtor's motion to dismiss, which alleged that the assignment violated Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-301. The statute applied to creditors, and the complaint had not alleged facts showing that the assignee was a creditor under Ind. Code § 24-4.5-1-301(8).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
