Case law

Hall v. State

199 Ind. 592 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1928

cause of his death, it seems it is not homicide, but then that must appear clearly and certainly to be so. … Both attending physicians appear to have been well qualified professionally, and all the evidence adduced negatives negligence or maltreatment.

McNutt v. McNutt

2 L.R.A. 372 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1888

Indeed, she had something more; she had an estate for life with a qualified right of alienation and a possible fee. R. S. 1881, section 2484. Bryan v. Uland, 101 Ind. 477 . … Clearly, this is not so.

Sanchez v. State

199 Ind. 235 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1927

In the instant case, it appears that the court’s discretion was clearly abused. The motion for a new trial should have been sustained. … R. 1022, the court said: “The character of the case and the evidence offered by the People were *246 such that the defendant should have been given every right the law afforded him in establishing his defense.

Smith v. Johnston

711 N.E.2d 1259 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 27, 1999

Where such a breakdown is established, Rule 60 is met and a default judgment must be set aside. Whittaker v. Dail, 584 N.E.2d 1084, 1087 (Ind.1992). … We do not agree that the failure of Smith to read his mail amounts to a breakdown in communication sufficient to qualify as excusable neglect under Trial Rule 60(B)(1).

Whitesides v. Hunt

97 Ind. 191 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1884

Berry, supra, the court very clearly defines the line which separates the two classes of contracts, the legal from the illegal. … Still this rebutting evidence clearly tends to show that the intention not to deliver the wheat, at the maturity of the contract, was not mutual.

Tucker v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners

163 Ind. 403 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 24, 1904

We hold that such a payment of money comes clearly within the terms of the bond, and within the spirit of the law requiring such bonds to be given.” Again, in Armington v. … rule that contract rights acquired under an interpretation of the law made by th§ Supreme Court'are not divested by a subsequent decision to the contrary does not apply to the claims of public 'officers to fees or salaries established

Underhill v. State

428 N.E.2d 759 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 3, 1981

He specifically argues that while testimony established the fingerprint impressions made on state’s exhibits 15, 17, and 21 were made by the same person, there was no evidence to establish defendant was the person whose fingerprints … State, (1970) 254 Ind. 379, 384-85 , 260 N.E.2d 572, 576 , this Court held the crime defined in Section 12 “clearly” qualified “as a felony.”

Middleton v. Greeson

106 Ind. 18 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 24, 1886

He is elected, gives bond and qualifies as township trustee. As stated in the case of Inglis v. … The legislation of the State clearly shows that^the contracting of debts by township trustees, on behalf of both their school and civil townships, was regarded by the Legislature as a growing evil, and one that should be

Vaughn v. Daniels Co.(West Virginia), Inc.

841 N.E.2d 1133 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 7, 2006

There is no policy reason to immunize Daniels from liability to those who are injured as a result of negligent design. … However, in addition to establishing the existence of a duty, in order to survive Daniels's motion for summary judgment, the Vaughns must also establish breach, causation and damages.

Spranger v. State

498 N.E.2d 931 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1986

Russ (1985), Ind.App., 480 N.E.2d 248 , 250-51: The above statute clearly states that a law enforcement officer may, at any time, detain a person suspected of committing an infraction. … The evidence establishes the location and nature of the wound clearly and beyond a reasonable doubt as being a back wound with entry from the back and exiting in the front in a downward path. (1) There has been the suggestion

Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina

486 N.E.2d 1019 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 2, 1986

During the third and through the sixth week, they could go without supervision, except for two hours daily, after which time they were regarded as being fully qualified to perform their work unsupervised. … Defendant's motions in trial and post trial clearly challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the punitive damages award and were erroneously overruled.

Alerding v. Allison

170 Ind. 252 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1908

The receipt shows upon its face that the appellee’s possession was not absolute and unconditional, but qualified, and during the pleasure of the executors. … It clearly pertained to no contract affecting the rights of the estate or of the eoexecutor. It bound nobody but the appellee. The estate surrendered no right.

Harrison Township v. Addison

176 Ind. 389 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1911

The one question presented by this appeal is whether the court drew the right conclusion of law from the facts found, which are, in substance, as follows: (1) That appellee was elected, and that he qualified, as trustee of … That appellee was short to the extent of $279.64, and failed to account in his final settlement for that sum, as found by the court, would clearly seem to be just cause for his indictment for embezzlement under the provisions

Robinson v. State

805 N.E.2d 783 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 2004

(a) Each sheriff shall establish written rules of inmate conduct for the maintenance of order and discipline among inmates. … Clearly, however, the abstract of judgment form requested only one number. In this box, the trial judge entered "187."

Bd. of Zoning Ap. of Decatur v. Decatur, Ind. Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses

233 Ind. 83 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1954

Even conforming to the established setback line there are approximately 2,000 square feet of off-street parking provided. … The zoning ordinance substantially reduced the value of a considerable part of appellee's lands. [3] Freedom of the press does not grant an immunity against conspiracies in restraint of trade. Associated Press v.

McLean v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

100 Ind. 127 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1884

Before presenting a synopsis of the evidence, it is proper, if not essential, for us to advert to certain rules that have been, established for the guidance of courts in the consideration by them of the evidence in a cause … By the provisions of his will he appointed his father, Lucius Eyce, now deceased, the executor thereof, and he, after first qualifying as such executor, furnished appellee with the proof required by the policy, as to the

Winbush v. Memorial Health System, Inc.

581 N.E.2d 1239 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1991

This clearly *1243 does not authorize the filing of such affidavits after the hearing begins even if it is not concluded until a subsequent date. … As stated in the Court of Appeals slip opinion at 6, "An unsworn statement or uncertified exhibit does not qualify for consideration in a summary judgment action," citing McMahan v. Snap On Tool Corp. (1985), Ind.

McKinley Kelly v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2025

widely accepted evidence that juvenile and adult brains are fundamentally different,” establishing that “children are less culpable and more capable of change.” … That section provides, “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” Ind.

State Ex Rel. Milligan v. Ritter's Estate

221 Ind. 456 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 20, 1943

By well established rules we are required to give all words of a statute some meaning if possible. McQuaid et al. v. State ex rel. Sigler (1937), 211 Ind. 595 , 6 N. … If the intention to preserve and continue such right is. clearly apparent, it will be carried into effect.”

Forrester v. State

440 N.E.2d 475 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1982

The determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert lies in the sound discretion of the trial court. Niehaus v. … It’s not been properly identified, there’s been no chain of custody established.” R. at 437. In Woodard v.