 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lipscomb v. State, No. 47A04-0606-CV-318,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 28, 2006, Decided , November 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's forfeiture order was unsupported by sufficient evidence; contrary to State's claim, Ind. Code § 34-24-1-1(d) statutory presumption only applied when money was found at same time person was committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring to commit any of specifically enumerated drug offenses, which did not occur in claimant's case.
|
|||||
| Porter County Sheriff Dep't v. Guzorek, No. 46S03-0606-CV-207,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, November 28, 2006, Decided , November 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When plaintiffs had sued an officer of a sheriff's department, an amendment adding the department as a defendant related back under Ind. R. Trial P. 15(C). The department had notice of the suit, which it was obliged to defend under Ind. Code § 34-13-3-5, and it could not have reasonably believed that its omission was for strategic reasons.
|
|||||
| In re Conditional Admission of Barkes, Supreme Court Cause No. 94S00-0610-BL-359,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, November 29, 2006, Decided , November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney failed to abide by the terms of a conditional admission signed by the attorney, pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 12 §§ 6(c), 10, the attorney's license to practice law was immediately revoked, and he was prohibited from filing a new application for admission to the Bar of Indiana for a period of three years.
|
|||||
| In re Ouelette, Case No. 02S00-0507-DI-324,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, November 29, 2006, Decided , November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3, and otherwise, a lawyer was suspended for 90 days for misconduct in which, after being hired to investigate a client's claim against a bank, never sent a demand letter to the bank. The lawyer also failed to make timely responses to the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission's request for information.
|
|||||
| J. H. v. State, No. 49A02-0604-JV-321,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 29, 2006, Decided , November 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of a probationer's probation/suspended commitment was reversed because the probationer did not receive written notice of the claimed violation of his probation that was sufficiently detailed to allow him to prepare an adequate defense, thus violating his rights under Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Cadle Co. II, Inc. v. Overton, No. 32A01-0601-CV-21,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 30, 2006, Decided , November 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A company's collection suit was properly dismissed as time-barred. Pursuant to Ind. R. Trial P. 4.4(B)(2), Indiana Secretary of State was deemed to be an absent car buyer's agent. Ind. Code § 34-11-4-1 did not apply to toll statute of limitations because buyer could have been served through Secretary. Ind. R. Trial P. 4.10 was not unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Raess v. Doescher, CAUSE NO. 49A02-0506-CV-490,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, November 30, 2006, Decided , November 30, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court struck appellee's notice of additional authority filed under Ind. R. App. P. 48 because it was nothing more than a surrebuttal to the arguments raised in the oral argument and because the additional case law cited in the notice could have been cited in appellee's corrected brief.
|
|||||
| McCarty v. Walsko, No. 45A03-0605-CV-193,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 1, 2006, Decided , December 1, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for patient seeking additional compensation from compensation fund was error. Patient presented no evidence that providers, in original settlement, actually expended amount on periodic payments agreement which, with their lump sum payment, exceeded sum required to constitute payment of policy limits under Ind. Code § 34-18-14-4(b).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
