 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ramsey v. State, No. 14A02-0509-CR-912,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 1, 2006, Decided , September 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A detective's testimony regarding a DEA investigation of defendant was not an "evidentiary harpoon." The testimony was merely part of the explanation of why there had been a delay in filing charges. Furthermore, the trial court had admonished the jury to disregard the answer, and defendant had not shown that the jury disregarded the admonishment.
|
|||||
| Steele v. Dep't of Workforce Dev., No. 93A02-0509-EX-899,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 1, 2006, Decided , September 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An unemployment benefits claimant was given a new hearing because the ALJ had not adhered to his duty under 646 Ind. Admin. Code 3-12-3(b) to see that a pro se claimant was afforded the chance to present his case fully. The ALJ had admonished the claimant several times not to testify, and he had never asked for the claimant's side of the story.
|
|||||
| Truitt v. State, No. 49A02-0508-PC-751,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 1, 2006, Decided , September 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's petition for postconviction relief was reversed, and the cause was remanded to the postconviction court for a hearing on the merits of defendant's petition because the postconviction court erred under Ind. R.P. Post-Conviction Remedies 1, § (4)(g) in summarily denying defendant's petition for postconviction relief.
|
|||||
| City of Fort Wayne v. Pierce Mfg., No. 90A02-0512-CV-1155,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 5, 2006, Decided , September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An unsuccessful bidder lacked standing to seek review of a city's award of a contract to another bidder under the Public Purchasing Statute, as it was not a "person aggrieved" under Ind. Code § 5-22-19-2. Under Ind. Code § 5-22-3-6, it had no property interest in the award, and it had no pecuniary interest or personal interest either.
|
|||||
| Howard v. State, No. 29S05-0609-CR-322,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 6, 2006, Decided , September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there had been no showing that a child witness was unavailable for trial under the protected person statute, Ind. Code § 35-37-4-6, the trial court violated defendant's right to confrontation by allowing the child's pretrial deposition into evidence in lieu of trial testimony. There had been no medical testimony about the child's condition.
|
|||||
| In re Finderson, Case No. 02S00-0507-DI-332,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 6, 2006, Decided , September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney represented a second client when there was a concurrent conflict of interest with a first client, the attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a); pursuant to the parties' Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23, § 11 statement of circumstances and conditional agreement for discipline, the attorney was publicly reprimanded.
|
|||||
| Jacks v. State, No. 89A05-0601-CR-34,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 6, 2006, Decided , September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, accused of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, was not entitled under Ind. Code §§ 9-30-6-3(b), -7 to receive an advisement warning him that evidence of his refusal of a chemical test could be admitted in a criminal prosecution against him. Therefore, the evidence of his refusal was properly admitted at trial.
|
|||||
| Staton v. State, No. 85S02-0605-CR-194,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 6, 2006, Decided , September 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victim's unrebutted testimony, that she "imagined" and "understood" that defendant, then a freshman in college, was 18 when he had sexual intercourse with her when she was 15, was sufficient to allow jury to find beyond reasonable doubt he was 18. Therefore, evidence was sufficient to support his conviction of violating Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
