Case law

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

Little v. State

475 N.E.2d 677 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 25, 1985

Defendant argues that while he was not formally charged with rape at the time the lineup was conducted, "he was clearly a 'prime suspect' based on the earlier identifications" made by the rape victims. … Defendant's reliance on Wade is misguided, however, because Wade explicitly qualified the informal right to counsel to stages of prosecution.

Mitchell v. State

726 N.E.2d 1228 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 18, 2000

Therefore, it clearly isn't at issue. It simply isn't. Record at 928. … To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Willey v. State, 712 N.E.2d 434, 444-45 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted).

Lafayette, Muncie, & Bloomington Rail Road v. Geiger

34 Ind. 185 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1870

To bring its validity within the control of the courts, it must be clearly subversive of the constitution.” Black, C. J,, in Sharpeless v. The Mayor of Philadelphia, 21 Penn. … The principle involved in the case under consideration is clearly distinguishable from that decided in the Maize case.

American Car & Foundry Co. v. Adams

178 Ind. 607 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1912

Section 9, so far as it relates to our subject, provides that “all vats, pans, saws, planers, cogs, gearing, belting, shafting, set screws, and machinery of every description therein [manufacturing, etc., establishments] … The instruction was clearly erroneous. Wortman v. Minich (1901), 28 Ind. App. 31 , 62 N. E. 85 . "We find no error in the record warranting a reversal. Judgment affirmed. Note.—Reported in 90 N. E. 993 .

Schmittler v. State

228 Ind. 450 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1950

The decisions of this court as well as the Supreme Court of the United States have clearly held that the constitutional safeguards were for the protection of the guilty as well as the innocent. … Appellant was at least entitled to the legal services that could be afforded by any second year law school student qualified to prepare a moot court case. ■ He did not even have that.

Howard Allen v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1998

Lane , 489 U.S. 288 (1989), dealt not with a statutory privilege, right, or immunity, but with changes in constitutional law. … State , 644 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. 1994), and the precedents established in Bellmore and Bivins .

Beauchamp v. State

6 Blackf. 299 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1842

Besides, the question was put in cross-examination, and it does not appear (-whether it be considered as qualified or not) *to have been irrelevant to the testimony which the witness had given for the prisoner. … That the law is as we have stated it, the following authorities most clearly establish. Brains’s case, Cro. Eliz., 778; Oneby’s case, 2 Lord Rayan., 1485; 1 Hawk., c. 31, s. 33 ; 1 East’s C.

Kunkle v. State

32 Ind. 220 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1869

result, an intent to murder could not be inferred, or other- / wise established. … .The charge, as we have seen, is upon the hypothesis that the felonious intent was clearly established; and the evidence shows that the appellant shot at Kestler twice, at a distance of not exceeding thirty steps, with a

Thayer v. Hedges

22 Ind. 282 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1864

As soon as peace was established, says Mr. Curtis, (Hist. … But, says Lord Bacon, “ gold hath these natures, greatness of weight, closeness of parts, fixation, pliantness or softness, immunity from rust, color or tincture of yellow; therefore, the sure way, though most about, to make

Central Indiana Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger

882 N.E.2d 723 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 11, 2008

Because that is the area sought to be restricted by the agreement, the agreement is clearly overbroad. … CIP bore the burden of establishing its claim and established that Krueger practiced in only three counties— Marion, Tippecanoe, and Howard — within two years of his termination.

Pate v. Tait

1 Ind. L. Rep. 83 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1881

be difficult for any cause to procure the attendance of such judge, to prevent delay, the court may appoint any competent attorney of this State, in good standing, to act as judge, who, if he consent to serve, shall be qualified … It is insisted by counsel for appellant that the plea of the statutory limitations is clearly established, and that there is no proof showing or affording ground for an inference of concealment by the defendant of the cause

LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin

730 N.E.2d 1251 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2000

agency action that is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … First, the structure of the Ethics Code is clearly pointed at sanctioning state employees who violate the Ethics Code and not conferring benefits on third parties arguably injured by a state employee’s violation

Wedmore v. State

237 Ind. 212 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1957

Appellant asserts that the trial court caused him to be held by recognizance bond beyond three terms of court in violation of Acts 1905, ch. 169, §220, p. 584, being §9-1403, Burns’ 1956 Replacement, by “failing to appoint and qualify … Procedural methods and safeguards should be established and *221 clearly pointed out.

State Ex Rel. Black v. Burch

226 Ind. 445 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1948

On the contrary, it was clearly vested, by § 843, in the governor and the superintendent of public works. . . .” … E. 2d 472 , in which the court clearly stated legislative power has been delegated as follows: “As pointed out in Blue v.

In Re the Custody of M.B. B/N/F S.C. and D.C. v. S.B. and S.W.

51 N.E.3d 230 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2016

Sections 10, 12, and 13 also provide that the circuit court has “concurrent original jurisdiction with the juvenile court” over issues involving establishing paternity and child custody proceedings in marriage dissolution … A stay would not be necessary in cases arising under one of the enumerated exceptions of Indiana Code § 31-30-1-1(2), which clearly provides for specific cases to continue in other courts while a CHINS proceeding is pending

Bemis Co., Inc. v. Rubush

427 N.E.2d 1058 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 12, 1981

Fox, a professor of engineering at Case Western Reserve University, who was called as an expert witness in the field of machine design and qualified as such. … Therefore, there was much speculation about the cause of the accident and about possible guards or warnings, none of which speculation was clearly related to the facts of this accident and how it occurred.

State ex rel. Jameson v. Denny

118 Ind. 382 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1889

An act of the Legislature is not to be declared unconstitutional unless it is clearly, palpably and plainly in conflict with the Constitution. Groesch v. State, 42 Ind. 547 . … With these reasonable and well established rules constantly in view, we proceed to examine the question of the constitutionality of the act now before us.

Blackburn v. State

519 N.E.2d 554 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1988

It clearly appears the strategy of the defense was bolstered by the admission of the statement. … For these reasons we fail to see that Blackburn has carried his burden of establishing his grounds for relief on this issue by a preponderance of the evidence pursuant to Ind.R.P.C.R. 1, § 5. Higgason v.

In Re GY

904 N.E.2d 1257 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 2009

But Fishel qualified her recommendation. She testified that “looking out for [G.Y.] … In my judgment, the assessment of these factors by the trial court is not clearly erroneous, and therefore should be affirmed.