 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bennett v. Broderick, No. 64A04-0606-CV-332,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in entering judgment for the landlord on the prospective tenant's breach of contract claim against the landlord; a binding contract was formed when the prospective tenant tendered a postdated check as payment of a security deposit at time residential lease was executed and the landlord repudiated the lease.
|
|||||
| Espinoza v. State, No. 09A02-0603-CR-222,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution for dealing in marijuana as a class C felony, Ind. Code § 35-48-4-10(b)(2) (2004), as police did not induce defendant to receive a package containing over 10 pounds of marijuana, but merely afforded him an opportunity to commit the crime, there was no entrapment under Ind. Code § 35-41-3-9(b).
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Hamilton, No. 80A02-0510-CV-929,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly instructed jury regarding surviving child's burden of proof in a will contest based on allegation third wife procured last will and testament through undue influence exercised on father; disputed transaction was more properly viewed as one between spouses, which law protected, rather than one involving fiduciary relationship.
|
|||||
| Hartman v. Keri, No. 02A03-0603-CV-135,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying the graduate students' summary judgment motion alleging that their complaints in the university's antiharassment proceeding were protected by an absolute privilege from the professor's libel claim against them; absolute privilege was essential to protect integrity of judicial functions that such a proceeding embodied.
|
|||||
| Howell v. State, No. 82A01-0606-CR-241,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although trial court properly considered prior convictions and fact defendant was in position of trust, sentence was reversed where child's age was not proven and trial court abused discretion by using criminal history as aggravating factor because prior misdemeanors were not sufficiently weighty or similar to offense to justify enhancement.
|
|||||
| Mackey v. Estate of Mackey, No. 82A04-0602-CV-96,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decedent's former wife filed claim against his estate for alimony due. As value of marital estate and portion of it she received were not clear from divorce decree, court was missing evidence it needed to determine whether payments were intended to be alimony or property settlement; it thus erred by denying wife's claim without evidentiary hearing.
|
|||||
| Thomison v. IK Indy, Inc., No. 34A02-0606-CV-476,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant was not prejudiced by plaintiff's failure to follow up delivery of process to her home by mailing her copy of summons, as required by Ind. R. Trial P. 4.1(B), and did not claim she did not receive process left at her home, she failed to prove service was ineffective. Thus, her motion to set aside default judgment was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Whalen v. M. Doed, LLC, No. 18A02-0602-CV-110,
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, December 27, 2006, Decided , December 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a tax sale was improperly set aside due to defendant's filing bankruptcy, but was reinstated after officials learned that he did not list his back taxes in the bankruptcy petition, defendant was not entitled to have a tax deed set aside because he did not show the existence of any of the defects listed in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-25-16.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
