 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. State Auto Ins. Co., No. 83A01-0508-CV-335,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FIRST DISTRICT, July 27, 2006, Decided , July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in denying truck driver and corporate officers' motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 60(B)(1); although they established entitlement to relief due to excusable neglect, they did not also show a meritorious defense to the allegations of the complaint, and case law had not abrogated that requirement.
|
|||||
| Hole v. State, No. 48S02-0607-CR-272,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 27, 2006, Decided , July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to an Ind. R. App. P. 7(B) review of his sentence for battery resulting in serious bodily injury to a person less than 14 years of age because he pled guilty to the charge under a plea agreement for a 10-year sentence. Rule 7(B) review was only available where a trial court exercised discretion when imposing a sentence.
|
|||||
| Members v. State, No. 49A04-0510-PC-569,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 27, 2006, Decided , July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court dismissed defendant's petition challenging state corrections department's denial of his request for educational credit time pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.3 for obtaining high school diploma earned from out-of-state school; post-conviction court did not have jurisdiction because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. State, No. 57S03-0607-CR-273,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, July 27, 2006, Decided , July 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court retained discretion in determining the amount of the sentence that would be executed, defendant did not waive his right to contest the merits of that discretion under Ind. R. App. P. 7(B) on grounds that the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. 45A03-0510-CR-518,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 28, 2006, Decided , July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's voluntary manslaughter and murder convictions were affirmed; although he may not have been informed that he had been charged with two murders at time of police questioning, he was made sufficiently aware of his right to counsel under Fifth and Sixth Amendments and of possible consequences of decision to forego aid of counsel.
|
|||||
| Plummer v. State, No. 92A03-0601-CR-42,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, THIRD DISTRICT, July 28, 2006, Decided , July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant molested his two daughters over an extended period of time, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it relied on that aggravating circumstance to impose consecutive sentences.
|
|||||
| Shorter v. Shorter, No. 75A04-0508-CV-491,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, FOURTH DISTRICT, July 28, 2006, Decided , July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Intent of parties' property settlement agreement, which provided that wife was to receive half of husband's pension plan account by a QDRO, was that wife's interest in account was not an amount of money in sum certain, but a 50 percent portion of the plan, and thus, wife was entitled to appreciation in value as of date QDRO became effective.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
