 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bruno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 46A03-0508-CV-365,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A guarantor had not effectively revoked his guaranty by sending the lender a letter by regular mail stating that a second guarantor was abusing the account, as the contract required that a revocation be by certified mail. Furthermore, the guarantor's inquires about stopping the second guarantor from using the account did not amount to a revocation.
|
|||||
| Frye v. State, No. 49A02-0507-CR-669,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court could properly infer that defendants girlfriend's initial reports to a police officer that defendant had two guns were made while she was under stress, the statement, which was nontestimonial, was admissible through the officer's testimony as an excited utterance under Ind. R. Evid. 803(2).
|
|||||
| Green v. Hancock County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, No. 30A05-0508-CV-470,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was a special exception permitted in an A-1 zone pursuant to Hancock County, Ind., Zoning Ordinance § 156.004, the court properly affirmed the grant of a special exception as the Board of Zoning Appeals did not abuse its discretion by including a banquet hall-wedding reception facility within the definition of commercial recreational use.
|
|||||
| In re Shepard, Case No. 49S00-0602-DI-76,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended for no less than six months for violating Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(c), 1.4(a), 1.4(b), 1.7(b), 8.1(b), and 8.4(d) by not refunding unearned fees, not timely complying with the disciplinary commission's requests for information, not keeping clients informed, ex parte communications with a court, and impregnating a client.
|
|||||
| In re Sullivan, Case No. 64S00-0509-DI-423,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days for incompetently handling or neglecting clients' bankruptcy cases, in violation of Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, and, because she claimed that this was due to an illness for which she refused to provide the diagnosis, she had to show that she was competent to practice to be readmitted.
|
|||||
| In re Yudt, Case No. 64S00-0605-DI-161,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re Z. H., No. 03A01-0601-JV-18,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to order appellant juvenile to register as a sex offender under Ind. Code § 5-2-12-4, as the State had not proven that he was likely to repeat a sex offense. Appellant had completed his treatment goals, the State's expert refused to say that he was likely to reoffend, and the State had not called appellant's doctor as a witness.
|
|||||
| Izaak Walton League of Am., Inc. v. DeKalb County Surveyor's Office, No. 02A05-0509-CV-539,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIFTH DISTRICT, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agency record filed by petitioners for judicial review was not inadequate under Ind. Code §§ 4-21.5-5-13(a) and 4-21.5-3-33(b). The statutes did not require that irrelevant or superfluous documents be included; the record contained the documents relevant to a hearing on the narrow issue of the cumulative effects of granting a logjam removal permit.
|
|||||
| Macgill v. Reid, No. 49A02-0512-CV-1180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 18, 2006, Decided , July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an employer that ran a housekeeping business had a protectible interest in its good will with its clients and housekeepers, a covenant not to compete was overbroad and unenforceable. It barred a former employee from being employed in any capacity by any other cleaning business and thus extended beyond the scope of the good will interest.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
