Case law

Lloyd v. State

206 Ind. 359 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1934

poor person, and if permitted to do so, the number of counsel assigned such accused, are questions for the determination of the trial court in the exercise of a sound discretion which will not be interfered with unless it clearly … It is there pointed out that in Texas and Tennessee the rule is qualified in that there cannot be a conviction in such a case for first degree murder.

Rowe v. State

539 N.E.2d 474 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1989

In the case at bar, the following instance-es are cited by appellant as examples of the trial court's "misconduct": 1) qualifying sua sponte a police officer witness as competent to relate the street price of cocaine in response … At trial, a defendant bears the burden of establishing his insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Code § 35-41-4-1(b).

Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund v. Diego Morales

Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 25, 2023

Sarkes Tarzian’s $10,000 donation would qualify as a contribution. … established constitutional limits.

State ex rel. Yancey v. Hyde

121 Ind. 20 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1889

Perhaps the principle has never been more clearly stated than by the great constitutional lawyer whose statements, as Emerson says,“ lay in daylight.” … The conclusion dcducible from these authorities is, so far as it is here necessary to ascertain it, that where the Legislature has power to establish a scientific department, or to establish any public institution, it has

Baker v. State

190 Ind. 385 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1921

The. same question was asked other doctors who had qualified as expert witnesses. … The adjudicated cases all agree in holding that a careful scrutiny should always be given evidence offered to establish the defense of insanity in criminal prosecutions.” In Butler v.

F. John Rogers, as Personal Representative of Paul Michalik, and R. David Boyer, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Jerry Lee Chambers v. Angela Martin and Brian Paul Brothers

63 N.E.3d 316 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 2016

But this contention fails to recognize established premises liability principles. … Ultimately, this Court determined that social guests qualify as invitees, so a landowner must exercise reasonable care for their protection. Id. at 643.

Indiana State Board of Public Welfare v. Tioga Pines Living Center, Inc.

622 N.E.2d 935 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 29, 1993

With respect to the GNP/ipd annual rate limiter, the illegality upon which the judgment is based is clearly substantive. A. … Clearly there is a preference implicit in the very concept of official government action of live personal participation by public officials.

City of South Bend v. Martin

29 L.R.A. 531 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1895

Martin, entitled: ‘ ‘An ordinance concerning the licensing of certain extraordinary trades and establishments. Passed December 11, 1893. Amended August 28, 1894.” … without a license, was held void, both because it violated section 23 of article 1 of the State constitution, which provides that: “The general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities

Gee v. State

271 Ind. 28 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 22, 1979

When the requirements to qualify as past recollection recorded are met, the document itself can be received into evidence, or the witness can be permitted to read it to the jury. … On review, we would disturb the trial judge’s ruling only if he abused his discretion in allowing clearly prejudicial evidence before the jury.

Musser v. State

157 Ind. 423 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1901

The evidence objected to, however, was clearly proper for another purpose. … As stated above, tbe evidence in our opinion amply established the conspiracy and acting together of the parties in the crime.

Clark v. State

808 N.E.2d 1183 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 2004

He has not established a violation of his right to cross-examine. II. … These findings establish that 'the trial court carefully considered Clark's criminal background.

Malenchik v. State

928 N.E.2d 564 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 9, 2010

We initially observe that the trial court's sentencing decision was clearly based on factors apart from the defendant's LSI-R and SASSI results. … The fact that numerical results from such tools may reflect factors that are separately shown by other evidence at sentencing does not dis- qualify the test results as duplicative.

Fesler v. Brayton

32 L.R.A. 578 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1896

It is an established principle of equity jurisprudence, that if there is “a probability that more wrong will be done than prevented by the injunction prayed for, it will not be granted.” 10 Am. and Eng. Ency.' … This discloses the intention clearly enough, that there should never be a time when there should be no apportionment law, under which legislative elections might be held.

Knight & Jillson Co. v. Castle

172 Ind. 97 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1909

in which to apply the equities and presumptions of the established law of surety-ship. … Benton, supra, the court said: “The contract on which this suit is brought was clearly a contract of guaranty. It was so declared upon its face, and such is its import.

Neal v. State

214 Ind. 328 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 27, 1938

The provisions of § 2-1430 Burns 1933, § 2223-1 Baldwin's 1937 Supp., Acts of 1937, Ch. 85, relating to certification to the clerk of the Supreme Court upon failure of a special judge to qualify, can have no application here … In support of this proposition it is urged that to sustain the second count of the indictment (murder in the perpetration of a robbery) it was incumbent on the state to establish that appellants were actually committing the

City of Logansport v. LaRose

99 Ind. 117 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 18, 1884

But the second paragraph of the complaint is clearly bad on demurrer, we think, for another and perhaps stronger reason. … The court clearly erred, wo. think, in overruling appellant’s demurrer to this third paragraph of the complaint.

Barker v. State

440 N.E.2d 664 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 14, 1982

This fact clearly distinguishes this case from those cases in which reference is made to a defendant’s prior conviction or jail sentence. If the jury actually heard and understood Mrs. … The second paragraph serves to further qualify and make conditional the jury’s mandate from Instruction No. 10. We find that Instruction No. 10 is within the scope of our holding in Taylor .

Board of Commissioners v. State ex rel. Cottingham

115 Ind. 64 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 30, 1886

recognize, but as clearly establish, a difference between aid to railway companies by municipalities by way of taking stock, and by way of donations. … To hold otherwise would be to abolish all distinction between an appropriation by way of donation and by way of taking stock, which is so clearly established and recognized by our statutes and the cases, and to hold that,

Orth v. Orth

145 Ind. 184 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1895

Very clearly, we think, it does not. … If we are correct in our conclusions that the letter raises no trust, and does not limit or qualify the absolute devise and bequest to Mrs.

Sharp v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners

54 Ind. App. 182 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 1912

appellant’s motion for a new trial; (3) that the judgment appealed from is not fairly sustained by the evidence; (4) that the decision of the court is not fairly sustained by the evidence; (5) that the judgment appealed from is clearly … The effect of the remaining contention of appellants as we gather it from the propositions announced in their brief is: (1) That the burden of proof was upon appellee, and before it could recover it must establish the allegations