 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Kapitan, Case No. 45S00-0510-DI-505,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, December 21, 2006, Decided , December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because more than six months passed since lawyer was suspended due to noncooperation with disciplinary process, and based on his continued failure to cooperate with disciplinary process, the lawyer's suspension was converted to an indefinite suspension from the practice of law pursuant to Ind. R. Admis. Bar & Disc. Att'ys 23(10)(f)(4).
|
|||||
| In re Rathburn, Case No. 02S00-0603-DI-97,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, December 21, 2006, Decided , December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lawyer was suspended for 18 months for misconduct in which he failed to provide adequate representation to clients, failed to comply with court orders to turn over client files to new attorney, failed to refund unearned fees, and failed to properly respond during investigation of complaints, in violation of, inter alia, Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3.
|
|||||
| In re Rush, Case No. 22S00-0607-DI-261,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA, December 21, 2006, Decided , December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lawyer was suspended for 90 days, stayed upon conditions, for misconduct in which two checks drawn on the lawyer's trust account were dishonored for insufficient funds, and the lawyer also could not account for or explain the ownership of $ 179 in his trust account, in violation of Ind. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a).
|
|||||
| Keesling v. Beegle, No. 18A04-0501-CV-10,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 21, 2006, Decided , December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was error to grant summary judgment to two defendants on plaintiffs' Indiana Securities Act and RICO claims. There were genuine fact issues as to whether the defendants, who received override commissions on phone sales, exerted control over and materially aided a sales representative and whether they had proximately caused plaintiffs' damages.
|
|||||
| Keesling v. Winstead, No. 18A02-0601-CV-73,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 21, 2006, Decided , December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indiana court did not have personal jurisdiction satisfying due process over an Oregon company manager because, while his signature was stamped on contracts made with Indiana investors, he did not purposely avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within Indiana and could not reasonably have anticipated being haled into court there.
|
|||||
| Leone v. Keesling, No. 18A04-0510-CV-626,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 21, 2006, Decided , December 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When appellant, a lawyer acting pro se, compared a lawsuit to a rape and suggested that the trial court was ignorant of the law, this crossed the line separating vigorous advocacy from invective. Thus, the court struck his argument on the issue of attorney's fees under Ind. Code § 34-52-1-1 and summarily affirmed the trial court's decision.
|
|||||
| Masick v. McColly Realtors, Inc., No. 37A03-0601-CV-38,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 22, 2006, Decided , December 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action involving the duty to warn of a defective step, summary judgment for the real estate company was reversed because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a duty to warn of a latent defect arose and whether the real estate company's agent breached it. Summary judgment for the subcontractor was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Windhorst v. State, No. 49A04-0605-CR-260,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 22, 2006, Decided , December 22, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence imposed for conviction of child solicitation under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-6(c) was affirmed as particulars of the offense were not unremarkable and did go beyond the inherent nature of the crime charged; among other things, defendant admitted intention to bring alcohol to planned rendezvous with a person he believed to be a 14-year-old girl.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
