 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Battema v. Booth, No. 49A02-0512-CV-1185,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 13, 2006, Decided , September 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it could not be concluded that the patient possessed enough information within two years after her laser procedure to lead a reasonably diligent person to conclude that malpractice had occurred, the trial court erred in finding that the medical malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
| Whiteside v. State, No. 49A05-0511-CR-674,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 14, 2006, Decided , September 14, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of felony auto theft was affirmed, because while a witness's prior auto theft conviction was more than 10 years old at the beginning of the trial, and thus fell under time limit provided by Ind. R. Evid. 609(b), the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighed its prejudicial effect, and the error was harmless.
|
|||||
| City of E. Chicago v. Lake County Transfer, No. 45A03-0506-CV-290,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 15, 2006, Decided , September 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision granting a preliminary injunction to a corporation that operated a transfer station for the city was affirmed because trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the liquidated damage provision did not provide an adequate remedy to the corporation when the city did not comply with the termination provisions of the contract.
|
|||||
| Meadows v. State, No. 49A04-0601-CR-43,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 15, 2006, Decided , September 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in sentencing defendant based on his convictions for being a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm and false informing; placing assault weapons in the hands of a known felon who killed a police officer and wounded another person permanently warranted the sentence pursuant to Ind. R. App. P. 7(B).
|
|||||
| Secrest v. Marion County Office of Family & Children (In re E.E.), No. 49A02-0602-JV-146,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 15, 2006, Decided , September 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision terminating the father's parental rights was affirmed. Although the notice sent pursuant to Ind. Code § 31-35-2-6.5 was ambiguous, the father had waived any challenges to the notice on appeal, and the father's due process rights were not violated at the hearing when the father was represented by counsel.
|
|||||
| Burgess v. State, No. 18A04-0510-CR-714,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 18, 2006, Decided , September 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In imposing full 30-year presumptive sentence for dealing in methamphetamine, court properly considered, under former Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4, that defendant was addict who was at risk to re-offend and that, as his three-year-old son was present where drug was being manufactured, reducing presumptive sentence would depreciate seriousness of crime.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. State, No. 49A02-0602-CR-144,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, September 18, 2006, Decided , September 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for murder and battery were reversed because trial court erred in denying defendant's request to represent himself at the second trial; defendant was found competent to stand trial and made multiple timely and unequivocal requests to represent himself, and there was no suggestion that defendant's requests were unknowing or involuntary.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
