 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hochstetler v. Elkhart County Highway Dep't, No. 20A05-0602-CV-98,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 25, 2006, Decided , October 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a driver hit a fallen tree, it was error to grant summary judgment to defendants based on Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(3). There were material issues of fact as to whether defendants had been put on inquiry notice about the tree and whether they had an opportunity to remedy the situation in light of other trees and limbs that had to be cleared.
|
|||||
| In re Ivanovich, Case No. 45S00-0608-DI- 291,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, October 25, 2006, Decided , October 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney stipulated that she violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) and numerous sections of Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23 based on improper conduct involving her pooled-fund trust account, the court suspended her for 90 days but stayed the suspension and put her probation as long as she met certain requirements.
|
|||||
| Parham v. Parham, No. 34A02-0605-CV-408,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 25, 2006, Decided , October 25, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a motion to submit a revised qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), a wife requested relief from a judgment that was legally impossible to implement and her motion was properly considered as an Ind. R. Trial P. 60(B) motion for relief from judgment and was properly granted.
|
|||||
| Stowers v. Clinton Cent. Sch. Corp., No. 49A02-0504-CV-288,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 26, 2006, Decided , October 26, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a wrongful death case, trial court improperly refused to give plaintiffs' proposed charge, which correctly stated that release forms did not absolve defendant of liability for negligence if they did not contain language specifically referring to negligence. Without the charge, a jury might think plaintiffs had released defendant of liability.
|
|||||
| In re Fetkavich, No. 45A03-0602-CV-82,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In action brought by a mother to change a minor child's name, the father was improperly excluded from the proceeding until time to testify because under Ind. R. Trial P. 19, the father was a necessary party to the proceeding even though Ind. Code §§ 34-28-2-2 to 34-28-2-4 did not require both parents to be named as parties in name change petition.
|
|||||
| Henley v. State, No. 82A05-0508-PC-480,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 30, 2006, Decided , October 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Direct appeal counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge trial court's summary denial of inmate's request that standby counsel deliver closing arguments because appellate counsel did not have reasonable strategic explanation for failing to raise issue and there was reasonable probability results of direction appeal would have been different.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, No. 45A03-0512-CR-629,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, October 30, 2006, Decided , October 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding rape defendant's mental illness itself to be a mitigating circumstance while finding defendant's failure to control his mental illness with medication and his risk of reoffending if he were released from prison and did not take his medication as separate aggravating circumstances.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
