 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Granzow v. Granzow, No. 64A05-0511-CV-637,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 23, 2006, Decided , October 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that a pension enhancement had vested by the final hearing date did not bring the enhancement into the marital estate for valuation purposes and division. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not include the enhancement when determining the value of husband's pension.
|
|||||
| Hanson v. Valma M. Hanson Revocable Trust, No. 45A05-0508-CV-492,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 23, 2006, Decided , October 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in refusing to require a trustee to apportion trust administrative expenses over all of the assets of a trust, as the terms of the trust required that all trust administrative expenses be apportioned across all of the assets, not just those assets going to residuary beneficiaries.
|
|||||
| Navarro v. State, No. 64A03-0601-CR-35,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 23, 2006, Decided , October 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported ruling that defendant's consent to a car search was voluntary under Fourth Amendment. Among other things, defendant was not under arrest or restrained when an officer first requested consent, when he later indicated ongoing assent while awaiting arrival of a second officer, or when he gave his consent to the second officer.
|
|||||
| Walsman v. State, No. 69A04-0512-CR-701,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 23, 2006, Decided , October 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's robbery conviction, under Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1, was affirmed as the evidence was sufficient. However, the sentence was reversed and remanded because the trial court should have sentenced defendant under the presumptive sentencing scheme as the advisory sentencing scheme violated U.S. Const. art. I, § 10 and Ind. Const. art. I, § 24.
|
|||||
| Wetherald v. Jackson, No. 03A01-0511-CV-518,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 23, 2006, Decided , October 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found that defendants established ownership to disputed property by adverse possession, as defendants established by clear and convincing evidence that they openly controlled the area by building improvements, that plaintiff was placed on notice of defendants' control, and that the possession lasted for the required period.
|
|||||
| Wineinger v. Ellis, No. 36A04-0510-CV-587,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 23, 2006, Decided , October 23, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since under any set of circumstances the passenger was not entitled to recover more damages than the amount she was entitled to receive from the uninsured driver, the trial court properly ordered that no references to insurance or the insurer be made at trial.
|
|||||
| Benge v. Miller, No. 49A02-0412-CV-1066,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2006, Decided , October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When one home improvement contract did not include the owner's signature, an approximate start or completion date, or a statement of contingencies that would materially change the approximate completion date and a second contract was not even in writing, the contractors had violated Indiana's Home Improvement Contracts Act.
|
|||||
| Farmer v. Lawson (In re Estate of Jonhson), No. 89A01-0505-CV-204,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2006, Decided , October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a second attorney withdrew from a first attorney's wrongful death case following personal differences, the trial court properly directed that the fees be divided among the attorneys according to their prior agreement because the fee splitting agreement complied with Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5(e) and the issue had become res judicata.
|
|||||
| Garland v. State, No. 47A01-0602-CR-65,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2006, Decided , October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's fifty-year sentence for two counts of child molesting was affirmed; the trial court properly assessed significant aggravating weight to the aggravators of abuse of trust and the victim's age where the defendant was the victim's uncle and her babysitter.
|
|||||
| Madge v. Rod O'Kelley, Inc., No. 84A01-0603-CV-92,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 24, 2006, Decided , October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether the damage to a manufactured home unit rendered the unit nonconforming to the purchase agreement under Ind. Code § 26-1-2-106(2) was a material fact question. Whether the buyer was justified in rejecting goods as nonconforming was a question of material fact that precluded summary judgment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
