 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Beatty, No. 49A02-0612-CV-1079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insureds were entitled to UM/UIM coverage under their umbrella policy. Presenting the insureds with an ambiguous rejection form during the policy's term that asked whether the insureds would like to give up existing coverage for which they had already paid, without consideration, was ineffective to waive the coverage under Ind. Code § 27-7-5-2.
|
|||||
| Maymon v. State, No. 48A02-0611-PC-1060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was ineffective for not seeking severance of a postconviction petitioner's burglary charges, as the evidence did not demonstrate a series of connected acts or a single scheme or plan. There was prejudice because with a severance, evidence of burglaries with theft would not have been admissible to show intent as to burglaries with no theft.
|
|||||
| Strong v. State, No. 20S03-0612-CR-529,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions of murder and of neglect of dependent, as a class A felony, Ind. Code § 35-46-1-4(b), violated double jeopardy because both charged offenses were still based on the same bodily injury. Only when deemed a class D offense, which did not include a bodily injury element, did the neglect conviction avoid a double jeopardy violation.
|
|||||
| Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States Filter Corp., No. 49A02-0604-CV-289,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 24, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to filter corporation on its action alleging it had coverage under insurance policies issued by insurers to, and paid for, by its predecessors in interest; consent-to-transfer clauses in policies prevented policy assignment, but did not block coverage for claims arising when policies were in effect.
|
|||||
| Cunningham v. State, No. 49A02-0612-CR-1138,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 25, 2007, Decided, July 25, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's confinement conviction under Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3 was not supported by the evidence. The victim had not testified that she felt confined, and an inference of confinement did not arise from evidence of the injuries that defendant had inflicted upon the victim.
|
|||||
| Felder v. State, No. 46A03-612-CR-566,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, July 26, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court erred in not treating defendant's guilty plea as a mitigating factor, his 10-year sentence for robbery was not inappropriate in light of his extensive criminal history, his previous probation violations, and the fact that he was on parole for robbery when he committed the instant offense.
|
|||||
| In re Miller, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0609-DI-338,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 26, 2007, Decided, July 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because more than six months had passed since an attorney was suspended due to noncooperation with the disciplinary process, the attorney's suspension was converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(10)(f)(4).
|
|||||
| In re Rawls, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0704-DI-158,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 26, 2007, Decided, July 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a suspended attorney fully complied with an order to show cause, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(10)(f)(5), he was reinstated to the practice of law and ordered to reimburse the Disciplinary Commission for the costs of prosecuting the proceeding.
|
|||||
| In re Shula, Supreme Court Cause No. 49S00-0603-DI-90,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 26, 2007, Decided, July 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was suspended for 90 days pursuant to Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 and otherwise, because, in three separate situations, lawyer failed to take timely proper actions in his clients' claims, failed to make timely responses to discovery requests, and failed to respond to clients' attempts to communicate with him about the status of their cases.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
