 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| J.B. v. State, No. 49A02-0609-JV-732,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 6, 2007, Decided, July 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the State had not shown that it had complied with Ind. Code Ann. § 31-39-5-2 by keeping juvenile fingerprint records separately accessible from adult records, the inevitable discovery exception to the Fourth Amendment applied because the print operator had access to the prints under Ind. Code Ann. § 31-39-4-9.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, No. 52A02-0611-CR-1029,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 6, 2007, Decided, July 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was fundamental error for the trial court not to instruct the jury that a conviction for attempted murder under Ind. Code §§ 35-42-1-1(1) and 35-41-5-1(a) required proof of specific intent to kill at the time the defendant took a substantial step toward committing murder. Intent was not merely an issue at trial, but the crux of the case.
|
|||||
| Lemon v. State, No. 49A02-0605-CR-375,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 6, 2007, Decided, July 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for misdemeanor battery was reversed because security guard did not have authority under Ind. Code § 35-33-1-4, to effect citizen's arrest for misdemeanor trespass where there was no actual force or threat of immediate use of force by defendant and failure to give defendant reasonable time after leave request meant no trespass occurred.
|
|||||
| Schumm v. State, No. 02A03-0608-CV-388,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 6, 2007, Decided, July 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officer's opinion in a traffic infraction case as to whether defendant's vehicle complied with DOT regulations was inadmissible because, under Ind. R. Evid. 704(b), it was inappropriate for a court to entertain evidence as to a witness's interpretation of the law. Defendant waived the issue of whether regulations should have been admitted.
|
|||||
| Lake County Sheriff's Merit Bd. v. Buncich, No. 45A03-0609-CV-436,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 9, 2007, Decided, July 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ind. Code Ann. § 36-8-10-3, providing that members of a sheriff's merit board were to be elected by a "majority vote of the members of the county police force," required that a successful candidate obtain only a majority vote of the members who participated in the vote. Thus, a candidate had received a majority vote under the statute.
|
|||||
| Eckman v. Green, No. 27A02-0609-CV-838,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 10, 2007, Decided, July 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to hold that a subcontractor was a third-party beneficiary of a purchase agreement between modular home buyers and a seller, as the agreement did not show a clear intent to benefit the subcontractor. Thus, the subcontractor could not enforce against the buyers a limitation period contained in the contract.
|
|||||
| Moore v. State, No. 26A01-0701-CR-37,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 10, 2007, Decided, July 10, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant was convicted of dealing in methamphetamine, his convictions of possession of anhydrous ammonia and of chemical reagents or precursors violated double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment and Ind. Const. art. I, § 14. Defendant could not have been in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine without possessing the other items.
|
|||||
| Andrews v. Monroe County Dep't of Child Servs. (In re D.A.), No. 53A01-0612-JV-526,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 11, 2007, Decided, July 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In termination of parental rights case, grant of counsel's motion to withdraw was error as counsel did not inform father of intent or send him copy of motion, and did not ensure he was aware of final hearing date. Father's rights under Ind. Code § 31-32-2-3(b) were violated as he did not have chance to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. State, No. 79A02-0611-PC-1007,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 11, 2007, Decided, July 11, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no indication from the record that a prisoner ever sought, let alone exhausted, his administrative remedies from the proper authority in pursuing his claim for credit time, the post-conviction court was without subject matter jurisdiction to rule upon his petition. Accordingly, the judgment denying his petition was set aside.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
