 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Maxwell v. Maxwell, No. 55A01-0601-CV-2,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 19, 2006, Decided , July 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly awarded stock and an IRA inherited from appellee's mother to appellee in the parties' divorce, as the fact that appellee inherited the items after leaving the marital home and shortly before the divorce proceeding was filed rebutted the Ind. Code § 31-15-7-5 presumption of equal distribution.
|
|||||
| Green v. State, No. 15A01-0508-CR-373,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 20, 2006, Decided , July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Separate sentences for conspiracy to commit burglary and attempted robbery were not allowed as they were one episode, under Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2, and, under Ind. Code § 35-41-5-3, defendant could not be convicted of attempt and conspiracy to commit one act. Admitted facts showing permanent injury and disfigurement could not aggravate his sentence.
|
|||||
| Hill v. Davis, No. 32A01-0603-CV-85,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 20, 2006, Decided , July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In light of an attorney's testimony and because the trial judge, as an attorney, had personal expertise in determining the reasonableness of an attorney's fee award, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by reducing the tenants' request for $ 13,857 in attorney's fees in the small claims action.
|
|||||
| McCray v. State, No. 49A02-0512-CR-1174,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 20, 2006, Decided , July 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(b), where an officer discovered defendant in a state of intoxication within 20 minutes after receiving dispatch that a female, later identified as defendant, was driving red car that intentionally struck another car.
|
|||||
| Aaron v. Scott, No. 46A03-0504-CV-180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 21, 2006, Decided , July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting judgment debtor's motion to quash, as trial court clerk could not issue enforcement order directing execution on certain property where trial court had issued valid, effective order that it could not compel property's return to Indiana; thus, trial court under Ind. R. Trial P. 72(C) could rescind execution writ.
|
|||||
| Bucko Constr. Co. v. Ind. DOT, No. 45A03-0507-CV-325,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 21, 2006, Decided , July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court in judicial review of the administrative determination properly refused to consider a breach of contract judgment issued in favor of the contractor. Ind. Code § 4-21.5-5-11 required judicial review to be conducted based only on the record that was before the agency.
|
|||||
| Colburn v. Kessler's Team Sports, No. 93A02-0511-EX-1118,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 21, 2006, Decided , July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employee's application for authorization of surgery, filed more than two years after his work-related injury, was properly rejected as time-barred because the limitations period of Ind. Code § 22-3-3-3 applied to claims for medical services and was not tolled by the failure of the employee and employer to disagree during the limitations period.
|
|||||
| Gray v. Schachel (In re P.W.J.), No. 49A02-0509-JV-861,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, SECOND DISTRICT, July 21, 2006, Decided , July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a paternity action, the appellate court, on rehearing, affirmed its original conclusion that the trial court properly excluded an affidavit purportedly signed by the father's son, where the father failed to present the appellate court with any court record demonstrating that the affidavit was verified.
|
|||||
| Twp. Bd. v. Elgin, No. 45A03-0510-CV-526,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 21, 2006, Decided , July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ind. Code §§ 36-6-4-3, 36-1-4-7 provided a township trustee with the power to enter into contracts and to receive and pay out township funds, and because a township board could not unilaterally usurp the trustee's powers through legislation, the township board was not entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
