 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brinkman v. Bueter, No. 29A02-0510-CV-980,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting the physicians summary judgment on a medical malpractice claim where the couple did not have the ability to discover the failure to diagnose and treat preeclampsia until they met with another physician and thus, the occurrence-based Ind. Code § 34-18-7-1(b) was unconstitutional as applied to the couple.
|
|||||
| Daffron v. Snyder, No. 57A03-0603-CV-94,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an offer of judgment by appellees in a § 1983 case was not a nuisance settlement and appellant was the prevailing party, the trial court lacked any discretionary grounds upon which to base a denial of attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988.
|
|||||
| Harris v. Marion County Dep't of Child Servs. (In re T.H.), No. 49A02-0606-JV-447,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a father's refusal to cooperate with the government was not, by itself, a basis for the government to interfere with parental rights and the integrity of the family unit, there was insufficient evidence that he neglected his children so as to support a children in need of services finding.
|
|||||
| In re Schrems, Case No. 53S00-0512-DI-626,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court found that attorney violated Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, 1.4(a), and 1.4(b) and publicly reprimanded the attorney because he only once returned client's phone calls, met with her once or twice during representation, did not inform her of date of final pretrial conference, and did not appear at conference, even after it was twice rescheduled.
|
|||||
| McCoy v. State, No. 02A03-0606-CR-230,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3 (2004) where the victim testified about the sexual assault and defendant stipulated that he was the father of the fetus that the victim had miscarried. An aggravated sentence was appropriate where defendant was the victim's stepfather and had impregnated her.
|
|||||
| Primmer v. State, No. 79A02-0606-CR-460,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in not withdrawing defendant's guilty plea where defendant never made a motion, much less a written, verified motion, to withdraw the guilty plea. Under both the old and the new sentencing schemes, the trial court acted within its discretion in not finding defendant's guilty plea to be a significant factor.
|
|||||
| Reed v. State, No. 49A04-0601-PC-31,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though the trial court erred in using the felony supporting an inmate's serious violent felon (SVF) conviction as part of criminal history justifying enhanced sentence for same SVF offense, defense counsel's failure to object did not prejudice him, as the remainder of his extensive criminal and delinquent history supported the enhanced sentence.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. State, No. 24A05-0510-CR-612,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(a)(2)(C)(b)(1) given, inter alia, the amount of methamphetamine present in a mobile home and the presence of a scale. The evidence was also sufficient to sustain a conviction under Ind. Code § 35-48-4-14.5(c) where defendant had control of the mobile home.
|
|||||
| Thompson v. Stull (In re Thompson Revocable Trust), No. 54A01-0602-CV-56,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 20, 2006, Decided , November 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trail court erred in granting a spouse summary judgment on a claim seeking repayment of funds from the decedent's children and a trust where she admitted that she had signed a consent to beneficiary designation form and strict compliance with 29 U.S.C.S. § 1055(c)(2)(A)(iii)'s requirement that the consent be witnessed led to an absurd result.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
