-
it is readily apparent that there was no duty on the part of Auto-Owners to deal with Cain in good faith
-
because defendant’s mental illness is well-documented and long-standing and because it apparently limits his ability to function, it is entitled to some mitigating weight and warrants a reduction of defendant’s total sentence.
-
If a party agrees to settle a pending action, but then refuses to consummate his settlement agreement, the opposing party may obtain a judgment enforcing the agreement.
-
When documents in the record contain otherwise inadmissible hearsay, however, that information cannot properly be used as substantive evidence to support a commitment.
-
We find that evidence of Davidson’s four previous DUI convictions was clearly relevant to his state of mind at the time of the accident and whether his actions were willful and wanton justifying the imposition of punitive damages.
-
At all relevant times, Brown was within the exclusive custody of the State. Therefore, he was entitled to invoke his right to a speedy trial under Rule 4(B) with regard to the pending charges, and the clock started running when his request was filed.
-
Using the federal poverty guidelines:we conclude that Hall is indigent and the trial court abused its discretion when it found that he is partially able to pay the costs associated with prosecuting his appeal.
-
Therefore, the statutes defining attempt and robbery do not require the State to prove that the defendant intended to commit robbery.
-
we conclude that the trial court’s finding that the information found in the databases was not readily available and was a trade secret under the Act is not clearly erroneous
-
The trial court correctly concluded that Hanna was a hitchhiker under Indiana’s Guest Statute at the time of his death but erred in finding that Hanna was not “in or upon the vehicle.
-
we conclude that the Commission properly rejected NIPSCO’s request for its proposed deferred accounting method.
-
Failure to object to lack of juvenile court jurisdiction over a particular case waives that issue for judicial review.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, April 27th, 2005 at 3:17 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
