 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bosley v. State, No. 06A01-0612-CR-572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 15, 2007, Decided, August 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant sought leave to file a belated appeal, under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2, in a criminal case and then in a post-conviction case, it was error to consider the second petition because that petition was barred by res judicata after defendant did not perfect an appeal of a denial of the first petition, which was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Cook v. Adams County Plan Comm'n, No. 01A04-0611-CV-646,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 15, 2007, Decided, August 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A landowner's one-year, automatically renewing, lease of enough land to comply with a local zoning ordinance requiring certain acreage for his hog operation was not a long-term lease allowing the issuance of a permit to operate his facility because the lease did not unequivocally leave no doubt as to whether its parties intended a long-term lease.
|
|||||
| Lile v. Kiesel, No. 82A01-0609-CV-376,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 15, 2007, Decided, August 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiffs met the elements for revocation of acceptance of a pull-behind trailer under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-608. Leaking substantially impaired the trailer's value, the leaks would have been difficult to discover prior to purchase, and plaintiffs in reporting the problem less than a week after purchase had given notice within a reasonable time.
|
|||||
| Morris v. State, No. 34A04-0611-CR-669,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 16, 2007, Decided, August 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's statements to police, made after third interview, was erroneously admitted into evidence because reasonable person in defendant's position, being interviewed third time, after twice trying to leave police station, would not have felt free to resist entreaties of police and thus, was in custody at time the subject statements were made.
|
|||||
| Dempsey v. Auditor of Marion County, No. 49A02-0612-CV-1074,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 17, 2007, Decided, August 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County's petitioning for issuance of tax deed while taxpayer's bankruptcy was pending violated automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a)(3), because it was an affirmative act to obtain possession of property of the estate. Therefore, even though county was unaware of taxpayer's bankruptcy, and bankruptcy was later dismissed, tax deed was void.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Morgan, No. 80A04-0606-CV-315,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 17, 2007, Decided, August 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nieces' intervenor complaint to contest a will was not untimely under Ind. Code § 29-1-7-17 because the nieces tendered a summons to the trial court within the applicable statutory period and the fact that the summons tendered to the trial court was not appropriately addressed to the attorney of record did not render their claim untimely.
|
|||||
| Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., No. 49A05-0612-CV-753,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 17, 2007, Decided, August 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claim preclusion prevented plaintiffs from pursuing Magnuson-Moss claims. The court's previous conclusion that Magnuson-Moss did not apply was essential to addressing plaintiffs' implied warranty of merchantability claim; thus, that conclusion, though contained in a footnote, was a final judgment on the merits of Magnuson-Moss's applicability.
|
|||||
| Petersen v. Burton, No. 41A01-0611-JV-517,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 17, 2007, Decided, August 17, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of father's petition to change child's surname was supported by sufficient evidence, including fact that father provided consistent financial support for child, exercised regular visitation, desired to improve relationship with child, and believed use of father's surname would help child understand father was more than "friend of the family."
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
