 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Creekmore v. State, No. 43A03-0509-CR-466,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 7, 2006, Decided , September 7, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Amendment to Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-1-7.1 made consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors discretionary rather than mandatory. As its application to crimes defendant committed before its effective date would violate Ex Post Facto Clause, the sentencing court erred in not giving significant mitigating weight to defendant's guilty pleas.
|
|||||
| Cash in a Flash, Inc. v. McCullough, No. 71A03-0510-CV-482,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 8, 2006, Decided , September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly denied payday lender's request for attorney fees and treble damages under Ind. Code § 24-4.5-7-409(2), as there was no evidence that borrower knew, at the time he executed post-dated check to lender, that he would not place sufficient funds in his account to pay for the loan at the time it came due.
|
|||||
| Hecht v. State, No. 49A02-0511-CV-1104,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 8, 2006, Decided , September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer filed class action suit against Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles for wrongful collection of excess excise taxes. As taxpayer sought refund under Ind. Code § 6-6-5-7.7, which was inapplicable, instead of Ind. Code § 6-8.1-9-1, he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Holeton v. State, No. 52A02-0605-CR-412,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 8, 2006, Decided , September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: At the time defendant committed domestic battery in Indiana, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a) allowed for a enhancement from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony based only on a prior conviction of that same statute. Therefore, his prior domestic battery conviction in Illinois was improperly used to enhance the Indiana offense.
|
|||||
| Stringer v. State, No. 34A05-0603-CR-151,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 8, 2006, Decided , September 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ind. R. Evid. 401, testimony that defendant possessed handgun when arrested and admitted recently firing it was irrelevant to drug possession and resisting law enforcement charges he faced. Pursuant to Ind. R. Evid. 404(a) and (b), its admission was highly prejudicial and violated his substantial rights; thus, he was entitled to new trial.
|
|||||
| A.E. v. State, No. 49S02-0510-JV-00456,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 12, 2006, Decided , September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a delinquency case, the trial court was not required to credit the time a juvenile served in predisposition confinement against his determinate sentence. Thus, the trial court properly held that appellant was not entitled to credit for the time he was confined between the dates of his arrest and his dispositional hearing.
|
|||||
| Freshwater v. State, No. 27S02-0606-CR-240,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 12, 2006, Decided , September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there was sufficient evidence to conclude defendant broke into car wash, defendant's conviction for burglary under Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 was reversed as there was not sufficient evidence to infer defendant had specific intent to commit theft; time and method by which defendant entered car wash suggested nothing more than defendant broke in.
|
|||||
| In re Haughee, Case No. 45S00-0605-DI-179,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 12, 2006, Decided , September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not submit a response to an order to show cause, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(10)(f), he was suspended until the investigation against him was completed; costs were assessed against the attorney in the amount of $ 520.
|
|||||
| J.D. v. State, No. 49S04-0508-JV-356,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, September 12, 2006, Decided , September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, a juvenile adjudicated delinquent who had been sentenced to a fixed term under Ind. Code § 31-37-19-10, was not entitled to a credit for time served in detention prior to sentencing. Requiring a credit would impinge upon a juvenile court's broad authority to fashion dispositional alternatives, of which "determinate" sentencing was one.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
