Case law

Frick v. City of Gary

192 Ind. 76 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 12, 1922

(2) the ordinance and such a statute, if there be one, are in violation of Art. 1, §§21, 23, Constitution of Indiana, which forbids the taking of private property without compensation, or the granting of privileges and immunities … Those, cases are clearly distinguishable from the one at bar, and we do not consider the question whether or not they were correctly decided. The judgment is affirmed.

Brownsburg Community School Corp. v. Natare Corp.

824 N.E.2d 336 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2005

Shortly after City of Lafayette, the Court held that Parker immunity extended to a municipality only if its actions were in furtherance of a “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” state policy. … Those jurisdictions afford immunity only if the municipal action is “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed as state policy.”

Kindred v. State

521 N.E.2d 320 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1988

Here, a valid waiver of appellant's constitutional rights was clearly established prior to granting his motion to withdraw. The trial court did not err. … The answer, clearly, is "No."

Pritchard v. State

248 Ind. 566 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1967

Thus instructing the jury involves, in a qualified sense at least, the exercise of a judgment upon all matters ■of law concerning which the judge must give information to the jury.” … In other words the court seemed to recognize the power but cautioned that such privilege and immunity should properly, in a legal and moral sense, be exercised only with restraint.

Dixon v. State

224 Ind. 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1946

The remaining population is composed almost entirely of white persons of whom from 10,000 to 20,000 are qualified for jury service. . … No state shall make or enforce any law •which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state de-~ prive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Bivins v. State

735 N.E.2d 1116 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 26, 2000

Second, because Bivins had the burden of establishing his grounds for relief at the post-conviction hearing, Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(5), he is now appealing from a negative judgment. … Second, Bivins contends that because “death-qualified jurors are, by definition, in favor of the death penalty and more than willing to impose it,” an instruction advising jurors to look to their own feelings

Dvorak v. City of Bloomington

796 N.E.2d 236 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 23, 2003

Article 1, § 23 When an enactment is challenged under the Indiana Constitution, it stands before this Court "clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing." … The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution states, "[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

Gross Income Tax Division v. Fort Pitt Bridge Works

227 Ind. 538 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1949

It was, we think, clearly a single contract, whereby Fort Pitt committed and obligated itself for the entire result. … The distinction between an independent contractor and an agent is well established.

Harrell v. Sullivan

220 Ind. 108 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 16, 1942

The appellees are the duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting judges and clerks of the circuit courts, and the Democratic and Republican county chairmen of Lake, Allen, Madison, St. … It is necessary to observe that Section 23 of Article 1 may not be restricted in its application to special privileges and immunities growing out of the election or appointment of public officers.

ARTHUR WALTER SEED CO. ETC. v. McCLURE, TREAS., ETC.

236 Ind. 666 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 2, 1957

When it is shipped by a common carrier from one state to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey, it is clearly immune. … The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption. " [ Emphasis supplied. ] ....

Hartman v. Keri

883 N.E.2d 774 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2008

Hartman and Swinehart acted under the procedure Purdue established. … Other communications receive a lesser degree of protection, known as a “qualified privilege.”

Fielden v. State

437 N.E.2d 986 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 29, 1982

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and support the verdict of the jury; 5. … Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment on the evidence because the state failed to establish a prima facie case.

Fechheimer v. Washington

77 Ind. 366 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

It was the duty of the disqualified judge to let the cause stand until a qualified judge should be present, or to transfer it to the circuit court without an application by the defendant for a change of venue. … Peter Zahn can not claim any immunity from the judgment in favor of the appellants, as he was not a party to the suit ; and if any future litigation should arise between him and the Fechheimers, touching the validity of said

Seymour National Bank v. State

428 N.E.2d 203 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1981

, and it is clearly a matter that the Legislature may determine. … I concur with the majority in its conclusion that the scope of immunity established by the legislature in Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5 -3(7) (Burns 1980 Supp.) does not embrace conduct of a willful and wanton nature.

State v. Cline

693 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1998

But this must be done on a case by case basis; the possibility of abuse does not justify immunity from discovery that the stations seek. … we easily conclude that Cline’s discovery demand does not rise to the level required to establish a Section 9 violation.

Laird v. Eichold

10 Ind. 212 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 1858

The charge, as thus qualified, assumes that an innkeeper is responsible for all injuries not caused by the act of Providence, the public enemies, or the fault of the guest, whether the injury result from the carelessness … R. 553, it is held that proof by the innkeeper that there was no negligence in himself, or his servants, is not sufficient for his immunity.

Whittle v. State

542 N.E.2d 981 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1989

When the State made the offer of immunity to Lockhart, the trial court indicated he would grant use immunity and order Lock-hart to testify. … Considering that the evidence on the events leading up to the shooting clearly established hostility between the Iron Horsemen and the Outlaws, it is doubtful counsel's stipulation to that fact prejudiced Whittle.

McFarland v. State

269 Ind. 527 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1978

The finding of the trial court here clearly revolved around the credibility of witnesses which is within the province of the trier of fact. There was no abuse of discretion. n. … It has long been established that there is a presumption that counsel is competent and that strong and convincing evidence is required to rebut the presumption. Roberts v.

Love v. State

519 N.E.2d 563 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1988

Writing for the Court, Justice Powell noted that Swain's requirement that a defendant demonstrate repeated removal of blacks in a number of cases had been a "crippling burden of proof" largely immunizing prosecutors' peremptory … Justice Powell described the inquiry as one which trial judges were especially well qualified to undertake.

Bailey v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority District

240 Ind. 401 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1960

the invalidating facts; and its invalidity must be clearly shown.” … Title to the act here under attack clearly satisfies the requirements of Article 4, §19, supra, of the Indiana Constitution.