 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| McDowell v. State, No. 34A05-0606-CR-289,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2007, Decided, August 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tape recorded messages defendant left on ex-husband's answering machine were admissible in trial for manslaughter and battery of third person since they called into question veracity of defendant's reports of abuse by ex-husband. Improper consideration of unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate defendant as aggravator was not basis for resentencing.
|
|||||
| Novatny v. Novatny, No. 46A04-0612-CV-698,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2007, Decided, August 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When none of the parties lived in Indiana at the time a father filed his petition to modify child custody, an Indiana trial court did not have jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. Indiana was not the children's home state under Ind. Code § 31-17-3-2(5), and Virginia, the home state, had not declined jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Akaiwa, No. 49A05-0608-CV-441,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 31, 2007, Decided, August 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An executor's suit against a distributor of asbestos fibers was barred by the statute of repose of Ind. Code § 34-20-3-1. As Ind. Code Ann. § 34-20-2-4 applied only to Ind. Code ch. 34-20-2, the distributor could not be treated as a miner under that statute; moreover, Ind. Code § 34-20-3-2 applied only to actual miners of asbestos.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
