 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abernathy v. State, No. 23A01-0601-CR-40,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of defendant's probation was affirmed because the mere fact that defendant had a plea agreement which controlled at the time of initial sentencing in no way modified the trial court's authority under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(3) (2004) to order execution of a suspended sentence following a probation violation.
|
|||||
| Hirshey v. State, No. 01A02-0511-CR-1038,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence obtained from a search pursuant to a warrant should have been suppressed because warrant was based on hearsay testimony of informant whose credibility was not established and lacked probable cause and good faith exception was inapplicable. Search of cabinets and stove in garage did not exceed scope of defendant's consent to search garage.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, No. 20A03-0512-PC-620,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the trial court had improperly advised defendant that he could not challenge his conviction or sentence on direct appeal, and defendant claimed that trial counsel had failed to advise him of his right to appeal his sentence, he was entitled to a hearing on whether he could file a belated appeal under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2, § 1.
|
|||||
| Lomont v. State, No. 17A03-0512-CR-617,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were affirmed as a court was not bound under Ind. Code § 11-12-3.7-11(b) to a plea agreement provision requiring it to sentence defendant to a forensic diversion program where no such program existed in the county of defendant's residence, nor was defendant denied equal protection of the law under U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
|
|||||
| Morgan v. Tackitt Ins. Agency, Inc., No. 32A01-0510-CV-447,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a negligence suit by an insured against an insurance agency, it was error to grant summary judgment to the agency. There were questions of fact as to whether the agency had obtained insurance in the amount requested by the insured and whether the agency had informed the insured that it had not obtained the requested insurance.
|
|||||
| Packard v. Shoopman, No. 49S10-0509-TA-414,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An objection to the timeliness of an owner's appeal of a tax assessment, raised in the assessor's response, was untimely under Ind. Tax Ct. R. 5 because it was filed more than 30 days after the owner filed his complaint. Therefore, the assessor waived any objection to the timeliness of the filing.
|
|||||
| Roberts v. State, No. 49A02-0511-CR-1110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although defendant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal was not his fault, pursuant to Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 2(a), he failed to diligently avail himself of his right to file a direct appeal; consequently, the trial court properly denied his motion to correct error after denying his request for a belated appeal.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Ind. Dep't of Corr., No. 49A02-0601-CV-58,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's complaint was properly dismissed under Ind. Code § 34-58-2-1. The statute did not violate Indiana's Open Courts Clause, as it only limited the substantive right that gave rise to a claim, and it did not violate Indiana's Privileges and Immunities Clause, given the State's interest in conserving judicial and administrative resources.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, No. 41A05-0602-CV-71,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 23, 2006, Decided , August 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though labeled a "Complaint," inmate's civil action against a store was nothing more than a request for discovery to support his post-conviction claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether he had purchased a particular type of log from the store. Dismissal pursuant to Ind. Code § 34-58-1-1 was proper.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
