 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gibson v. State, No. 48A04-0603-CR-165,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court failed to mention the guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance and defendant's guilty plea was entitled to substantial mitigating weight since he pled guilty to all three charges, even though he could only have been convicted of one of them, the maximum sentence was inappropriate and the matter was remanded for resentencing.
|
|||||
| Hofferth v. State, No. 37A03-0601-CR-44,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because at no time did defendant indicate he wished to represent himself, rather, he repeatedly stated that he did not have the requisite skills necessary to effectuate his own defense, and that he desired to be represented by counsel, the trial court blatantly ignored his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
|
|||||
| In re Knepper, No. 82A04-0602-CV-57,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Dead Man's Statute, Ind. Code § 34-45-2-4, did not apply to either a sister who was a guardian or an attorney since the attorney stood to gain or lose nothing by the trial court's judgment and no estate was ever opened for the deceased and the sister was never an executor or administrator of such an estate.
|
|||||
| Outback Steakhouse of Fla., Inc. v. Markley, No. 18S04-0602-CV-66,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When, in a personal injury case, alleged injured parties' response to a restaurant's discovery request did not identify a critical witness known to their counsel, this omission, despite an intention not to call the witness, along with their counsel's other acts and omissions, was misconduct, under Ind. R. Trial P. 60(B)(3), requiring a new trial.
|
|||||
| Roob v. Fisher, No. 49A02-0602-CV-103,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the court was directed to vacate the orders at issue and enter judgment in favor of the state agencies because 42 U.S.C.S. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) did not create a private right of action for the providers and recipients of Medicaid services that could be enforced in their action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983.
|
|||||
| Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., No. 44A03-0512-CV-594,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 8, 2006, Decided , November 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because policy's household exclusion encompassed Ind. Code § 27-1-13-7 as an exception to the policy's exclusions, liability carrier was still obligated to insure against vicarious liability stemming from permissive users legally driving the insured vehicle as imposed by Michigan statute. Insured's misrepresentation did not preclude coverage.
|
|||||
| Citizens Indus. Group v. Heartland Gas Pipeline, LLC, No. 93A02-0601-EX-42,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 9, 2006, Decided , November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal from an order of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission was untimely under Ind. R. App. P. 9(A)(3), as an appeal from an agency order had to be filed within 30 days of the date of the order regardless of whether a petition for reconsideration was pending before the agency. The rule prevailed over Ind. Code § 8-1-3-2(b).
|
|||||
| In re Conditional Admission of Applicant No. 40102, Supreme Court Cause No. 94S00-0607-BL-263,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, November 9, 2006, Decided , November 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not abide by the terms of his conditional admission and did not respond to a show cause order issued by the Board of Law Examiners, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 12 § 10, the attorney's license to practice law was revoked, and the attorney was prohibited from reapplying for admission for two years.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
