 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fields v. State, No. 15A01-0511-CR-525,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 24, 2006, Decided , August 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was affirmed. Defendant's sentence was shorter than his original sentence by 45 years; furthermore, under his new sentence, defendant could be released without having to spend any time on probation. Therefore, the trial court did not violate Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 1, § 10(b).
|
|||||
| Jarrell v. State, No. 06A05-0506-CR-356,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 24, 2006, Decided , August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission into evidence of certificate attesting that machine used to test defendant's breath for alcohol had been inspected and was accurate did not violate defendant's rights under Sixth Amendment as certificate was not "testimonial" evidence. Right to confrontation was not violated because witness' answers to questions were unsatisfactory.
|
|||||
| Jones v. Womacks, No. 49A02-0509-CV-853,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 24, 2006, Decided , August 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Ind. Code § 6-1.1-20-3.2 called for what amounted to a de facto election, and the State failed to show a compelling state interest to limit the right to participate in a petition/remonstrance proceeding to only those who owned real property within the political subdivision, § 6-1.1-20-3.2 was held unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Chickamauga Props. v. Barnard, No. 36A01-0510-CV-444,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 25, 2006, Decided , August 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in ruling that property owners had a prescriptive easement over their neighbor's land, as he did not rebut the presumption that a prior owner's use of an access road over the neighbor's land was adverse for over 20 years, and the neighbor failed to establish that the prior or current owners had abandoned the easement.
|
|||||
| Hellums v. Raber, No. 14A01-0602-CV-68,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 25, 2006, Decided , August 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though it was appellee's hunting partner who shot appellant, appellee was not entitled to summary judgment, as genuine fact issue existed as to whether appellee was negligent and whether his rapidly firing gun in the direction of appellant's party prompted or substantially encouraged his hunting partner to discharge his weapon in same direction.
|
|||||
| Huber v. United Farm Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 67A01-0601-CV-6,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 25, 2006, Decided , August 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insured's claim that umpire chosen to decide insurance dispute was partial did not exist when responsive pleading was due in prior suit, and thus it was not compulsory counterclaim under Ind. R. Trial P. 13. Res judicata did not apply and the insured alleged an appropriate ground for setting aside appraisal, so summary judgment was improper.
|
|||||
| In re Guardianship of E.N., No. 88A01-0508-CV-338,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 25, 2006, Decided , August 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An estate plan was proper under Ind. Code § 29-3-9-4. The primary goal of the statute was that a ward's assets be used to support him and his dependents during his lifetime, a goal this plan met, and an estate plan that put all of the ward's assets into a trust and that effectively rewrote his will was not improper under the statute.
|
|||||
| State v. Cook, No. 20A04-0602-CR-73,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, August 25, 2006, Decided , August 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where police searched defendant's trash based only upon defendant's receipt of package from garden supply company that sold tools and materials that could be used to grow all kinds of crops and that allegedly delivered to high percentage of marijuana growers, search was unlawful, as police failed to corroborate criminal activity.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
