 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Am. Family Ins. Co. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 49S02-0609-CV-339,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant manufacturer, a Delaware corporation, had a registered office in Marion County, venue was preferred in Marion County under Ind. R. Trial P. 75(A)(4). In referring to a "principal office," the rule referred to what was now known as a "registered office"; thus preferred venue was in the county of an organization's registered office.
|
|||||
| Buckner v. State, No. 49A02-0602-CR-150,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a victim testified that defendant taped her to a pole, "tased" her, and punched her, his conviction for criminal confinement under Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3 and battery under Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 was upheld because the State provided racially neutral reasons for excluding two African American jurors and there was sufficient evidence.
|
|||||
| J.D.P. v. State, No. 35A04-0512-JV-728,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile's conviction for committing an act that would have been aiding in arson if committed by an adult was affirmed as the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an officer to testify regarding the juvenile's statements made during an interrogation, the juvenile had waived his Miranda rights, and the evidence was sufficient.
|
|||||
| Kelnhofer v. State, No. 79A05-0606-CR-312,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under circumstances in which the evidence was clear that defendant had killed twice, the facts of one homicide revealing an egregious nature, and his admission of the other murder, imposition of the balance of defendant's suspended sentence upon a revocation of probation imposed upon defendant's manslaughter conviction was proper.
|
|||||
| LinkAmerica Corp. v. Cox, No. 49S04-0603-CV-88,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parent corporation's dismissal motion for lack of personal jurisdiction under Ind. R. Trial P. 4.4(A) was wrongly denied in a breach of contract action. Truck buyer and his wife did not rebut presumption that parent and subsidiary trucking company were distinct entities; companies had separate business operations and observed corporate formalities.
|
|||||
| Members v. State, No. 49A04-0605-PC-269,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate was properly denied placement in a post-conviction forensic diversion program; although he was diagnosed with mental illness and addictive disorders in 1994, he failed to prove that he had been recently examined by any health professional to determine that he currently suffered from the disorders as required by Ind. Code § 11-12-3.7-12(a).
|
|||||
| Ross v. Harris, No. 46A04-0509-CV-514,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injunction ordering home owners to remove a portion of a 55-foot tall addition was proper because it did not meet tower exception to 30-foot height restriction of Mich. City, Ind., Zoning Ord. § 160.010(D)(1) in that it was a habitable structure and not a communication tower and was clearly the type of structure that ordinance sought to prevent.
|
|||||
| Schultz v. Ford Motor Co., No. 49S02-0508-CV-376,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, December 5, 2006, Decided , December 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Instruction based on Ind. Code § 34-20-5-1(1998), stating that if jurors found manufacturer complied with federal motor vehicle standard they could presume it was not negligent in its design of vehicle and vehicle was not defective, was proper; under Ind. R. Evid. 301, presumption was given continuing effect even if contrary evidence was received.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
