 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of Sch. Trs. of Logansport Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. P.F. (In re P.F.), No. 09A05-0511-CV-634,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 6, 2006, Decided , July 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a civil suit challenging a school board's refusal to hear a student's appeal of his expulsion, Ind. Code § 20-8.1-5.1-13(d) was interpreted to permit a school board not to hear an appeal only if it had voted in the past not to hear appeals in general. The statute did not give a school board case by case discretion to vote on hearing appeals.
|
|||||
| Clary v. Lite Machs. Corp., No. 79A05-0411-CV-610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 11, 2006, Decided , July 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice case where the client alleged that a firm had failed to research an issue, the attorney judgment rule would not apply because the applicable law was settled and the firm failed to research the issue even after opposing counsel raised it. Thus, the firm's professional judgments were uninformed and not entitled to immunity.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Ashton, No. 43A03-0506-CV-300,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 12, 2006, Decided , July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a patient did not raise as an issue that a nerve injury resulting from surgery was caused by negligence in the manner in which the surgery was performed, summary judgment on negligence claim against doctor was proper. Patient still had a claim for lack of informed consent, and upon proof, was entitled to damages accruing therefrom.
|
|||||
| In re Contempt of McLaren, Case No. 98S00-0312-DI-601,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 12, 2006, Decided , July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was fined and sentenced to a term of incarceration, with the incarceration suspended upon payment of the fine, because the attorney, who had resigned from the Indiana Bar, violated Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 26(b) as he provided legal services after resigning.
|
|||||
| In re Croushore, Case No. 98S00-0604-DI-140,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 12, 2006, Decided , July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the State of Indiana, under Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(28)(c), because he failed to demonstrate why reciprocal discipline was not to issue after he was suspended in another state. The suspension was stayed subject to his compliance with the terms of his probation in the other state.
|
|||||
| Ransley v. State, No. 64A04-0509-CR-541,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 12, 2006, Decided , July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was insufficient evidence for an intimidation conviction under Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1. Defendant's threat to shoot his neighbor's son-in-law if he came onto defendant's property was aimed at a future trespass, not a prior lawful act, and there was insufficient evidence that he threatened the son-in-law for the prior lawful act of arguing.
|
|||||
| Redden v. State, No. 31A04-0509-CR-522,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 12, 2006, Decided , July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of evidence seized from defendant's property, where he was convicted of four drug or drug-related offenses, was not error; his Fourth Amendment and Ind. Const. art. I, § 11 rights were not violated, as seizure of items in plain view and admission marijuana was in his house made seizure reasonable under totality of the circumstances.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
