 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gov't Payment Serv. v. Ace Bail Bonds, No. 49A02-0507-CV-656,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 11, 2006, Decided , October 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that a corporation intentionally interfered with business relationships between bail agents and public entities and in enjoining corporation from facilitating cash bail. There was no evidence that bail agents' prior access to incarcerated defendants was a matter of right or flowed from a business relationship.
|
|||||
| Payne v. State, No. 61A01-0512-CR-562,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 11, 2006, Decided , October 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress was properly denied where deputy had requisite suspicion to detain defendant after finding out bridge on fire and that defendant's whereabouts had been discussed in connection with the fire and detention, including short period in which defendant was handcuffed, did not rise to level of arrest, but was investigatory detention.
|
|||||
| St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, No. 82A01-0603-CV-128,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 11, 2006, Decided , October 11, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A board of zoning appeals' denial of a special use permit to build a cellular tower was clearly erroneous. The applicant had satisfied the requirements for a permit under the zoning ordinance, and the board's findings as to adverse effect on property values and lack of harmony with a comprehensive plan were based solely on remonstrators' testimony.
|
|||||
| Baysinger v. State, No. 01A02-0512-CR-1178,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 13, 2006, Decided , October 13, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence for murder under Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1(1) was affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-7.1(a) in finding defendant's prior criminal history to be an aggravator. Further, the sentence was appropriate under Ind. R. App. P. 7(B) in light of the nature of the offense and defendant's character.
|
|||||
| Galloway v. Galloway, No. 34A02-0602-CV-160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 16, 2006, Decided , October 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court was presented with no competent evidence of the estate's only two sizable assets, the husband's business and the wife's pension. Because the husband failed to introduce evidence of the value of the assets, the husband was estopped from appealing the trial court's distribution which awarded the wife her pension and the husband his business.
|
|||||
| Mills v. State, No. 49A04-0512-PC-722,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 16, 2006, Decided , October 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of the inmate's petition for post-conviction relief was upheld because there was no basis for concluding that the inmate's guilty plea was unknowing, unintelligent, or involuntary. The inmate did not establish that he received erroneous advise regarding the maximum possible sentence he faced.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
