 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Carmel v. Certain Southwest Clay Twp. Annexation Terr. Landowners, No. 29S00-0608-CV-300,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court clearly erred in holding that a city's fiscal plan for annexation did not meet Ind. Code Ann. § 36-4-3-13(d) where it should have considered an amended fiscal plan, the landowners failed to contest the adequacy of the services planned, and the trial court found that the city's finances were sufficient to carry out the services.
|
|||||
| Conrad v. Atkins (In re Atkins), No. 29A02-0606-CV-471,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an incapacitated person's parents as his co-guardians rather than his life partner, but it did err in denying the partner's request for visitation and telephonic contact where the overwhelming evidence showed that continued contact with the partner were in the individual's best interest.
|
|||||
| Grant v. Hager, No. 82S01-0706-CV-254,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of child support from custodial parent to noncustodial parent was improper because there was a rebuttable presumption that a custodial parent was not required to make child support payments. Trial court had authority to deviate from that presumption, but failed to make written finding mandated by Ind. Child Support Rule 3 to do so.
|
|||||
| Kopczynski v. Barger, No. 88A05-0612-CV-703,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Property owners were entitled to summary judgment in mother and daughters' negligence and premise liability claims because the daughter was a trespasser when the owners' six-year-old son invited the daughter to jump on a trampoline on which the daughter fell and was injured. The son lacked authority to invite the daughter to jump on the trampoline.
|
|||||
| Kuehne v. UPS, No. 82A04-0607-CV-381,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A negligence claim brought by a husband and wife against a delivery company was not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, 49 U.S.C.S. § 14501, as the subsequent occurrences stemming from the driver leaving a package on the couple's doorstep did not amount to a service of the company.
|
|||||
| State v. McManus, No. 82S00-0503-PD-78,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A postconviction court erroneously vacated defendant's death sentence under Ind. Code § 35-36-9-2 where the evidence showed that he did not fall below the level of intellectual functioning that defined mental retardation or that his adaptive behavior was substantially impaired. He also failed to prove that his trial counsel was ineffective.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Thompson, No. 45A03-0605-CV-200,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, June 27, 2007, Decided, June 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion in calculating an ex-husband's child support order without considering Social Security benefits received by a child. The benefits was just one factor to consider under Ind. Code § 31-16-6-1 and under the mandate to maintain the child's standard of living had there been no divorce.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
