Case law

Meridian Mutual Insurance v. Auto-Owners Insurance

698 N.E.2d 770 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 31, 1998

Evidence on these and other points will tend to establish whether the arrangement is a joint venture of shared burden or an enterprise existing for the profit of the driver. … For example, in Gonzales “[t]he deposition testimony clearly reflect[ed] that the employees considered themselves car pooling.” Gonzales, 86 F.3d at 674 .

Vincent J. Prowell v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 4, 1998

The trial court’s statement, although brief, adequately establishes that the court evaluated and balanced the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. 4. … Thus, the issue is not whether in our judgment the sentence is unreasonable, but whether it is clearly, plainly, and obviously so.

Wallace v. State

199 Ind. 317 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1927

The immunity guaranteed by the constitution should not be lightly set aside by a mere general declaration of a nonjudicial officer that he has reason to believe and does believe, etc. … The question in the instant case is the admissibility of evidence presented by an alleged *339 void search warrant to sustain an entirely different proposition from that before the court in the Rose case, thus clearly distinguishing

Marq Hall v. State of Indiana

36 N.E.3d 459 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 2, 2015

As the Court of Appeals stated, “the State used the phone call as a sword to attack Hall’s credibility, while it simultaneously used the motion in limine as a shield to immunize A.D. from cross-examination, to bolster A.D … However, the fourth factor clearly favors the State, as Hall was otherwise permitted to extensively cross-examine both A.D. and M.T. about what happened before, during, and after the rape.

Drollinger v. State

274 Ind. 5 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 26, 1980

Even a showing that a juror entertained a preconceived opinion as to the defendant’s culpability is insufficient: “Qualified jurors need not, however, be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. … While there was apparently no evidence that this weapon was actually fired during the murders, the weapon nevertheless clearly tends to connect Drollinger with the charged crimes. Riggenbach v. State, supra ; Hill v.

Overstreet v. State

877 N.E.2d 144 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 27, 2007

Polk, 441 F.3d 238, 247 (4th Cir.2006) (declaring that existing precedent “do[es] not clearly establish that a defendant’s right to a fair jury trial is violated whenever an article of clothing worn at trial arguably conveys … In a recent decision, the Supreme Court determined it was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law for a state court to hold that buttons displaying the victim’s image and worn by

Harmon v. Best

174 Ind. 323 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1910

The receiver filed in said court a plea in abatement, alleging therein that plaintiff’s wages, which he sued to recover, had been garnished in a proceeding brought before a duly qualified commissioner of the United States … The principle governing such seizure is clearly settled by the decision in In re Tyler (1893), 149 U. S. 164, 182 , 13 Sup. Ct. 785, 37 L. Ed. 689 .” 3. The case of Embry v. Palmer (1882), 107 U. S. 3 , 2 Sup.

Cooper v. State

854 N.E.2d 831 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 5, 2006

More specifically, the defendant must establish not only the grounds for the misconduct but also the additional grounds for fundamental error. Booher, 773 N.E.2d at 817; see also Johnson v. … Id. 8 qualified Cooper for a life sentence was resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony.

Roberts v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.

897 N.E.2d 458 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 9, 2008

A written plan was established for Dr. Roberts to catch up on his charting and to improve his overall efficiency. Shortly after his re- turn, Dr. … Findings of fact are clearly erroneous when they have no factual support in the record. Nichols v. Minnick, 885 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. 2008).

Linke Ex Rel. Linke v. Northwestern School Corp.

763 N.E.2d 972 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 2002

The testing intrudes on students who in no way qualify for the lessened expectation of privacy some cases, like Vernonia, have attributed to athletes. C. Chandler v. Miller In Chandler v. … First, the survey and other evidence relied upon by NSC may establish a drug problem, but not among the categories of students tested.

Bartrom v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.

618 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1993

Furthermore, the duty of spousal support is clearly embedded in Indiana's modern law of domestic relations. … Wendorf (1977), 174 Ind.App. 172 , 366 N.E.2d 703 (husband may prevail on appeal by establishing inability to pay maintenance award); Castor v.

Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido's, Inc.

712 N.E.2d 446 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1999

This evidence, while clearly indicating that the Journal-Gazette was careless and negligent, was not indicative of actual malice. … Clearly, legal recognition and protection of a person's reputational interest is deeply entrenched in our history and practice.

Wallace v. State

905 N.E.2d 371 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 30, 2009

Red letters flash “SEX PREDATOR” under the photographs of offenders whose crimes qualify them as sexually violent predators.6 Id. … Under this test a court first determines whether the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings. Id.

Powers v. State

87 Ind. 144 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1882

Clearly the court committed no ei’ror in excluding the offered testimony. Binns v. State, 57 Ind. 46 ; Wheeler v. State, 14 Ind. 573 . … Although unnecessary, this brings the motion into the record; but the truth of the matters stated in the several grounds is not established by the affidavit.

Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc.

621 N.E.2d 1078 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1993

This provision clearly states that liability is limited to the purchase price of the seed, and does not allow any amount for incidental or consequential damages such as Hall Farms' lost profits. … The undisputed evidence establishes that the Act does not permit recovery of the damages claimed in this case.

Ortiz v. State

265 Ind. 549 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1976

We have held that a confession is inadmissible if obtained by a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment. Ashby v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 316 , 354 N.E.2d 192 . … We have often held that a conviction will not be upheld upon evidence merely tending to establish a suspicion of guilt, or that the accused had the opportunity to commit the crime, Dunn v.

State Ex Rel McNutt v. Orcutt

211 Ind. 523 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1936

There is no public policy that can qualify the public policy upon which rests the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the sovereign. … The foregoing cases clearly establish the rule in this state that a condemnor of land under a declaration of appropriation which purports to take all interest in the land, does as a matter of law, take all legal interests

Witte v. Dowd, Warden

230 Ind. 485 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1951

Since being a “habitual criminal” is not a crime under the Indiana statute but is only a state or status, what effect can the possession of that status by appellant—or any other person—have upon his—or their— immunity from … The court must expound what it finds written, and can not import additional meaning without sufficient indication thereof in the words of the statute with such aids thereto as the established rules of law authorize.

Heilman v. Shanklin

60 Ind. 424 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1878

Kumler, to be used by them in inducing persons and qualified voters in said district to vote for Heilman for “ the office.” … It is settled clearly and conclusively, we think, but adversely to the position of the appellant’s counsel, by the provisions of our code of practice.

Davidson v. Koehler

76 Ind. 398 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1881

termination of th& preceding particular estate, the remainder is unquestionably vested.’ * * * * In 4fch Kent’s Commentaries, 282, it. is said: ‘This has now become the settled technical construction of the language and the established … These provisions of the order of the court, which were fully authorized by the special act, show very clearly that no confirmation of the sales by the court was requisite or necessary to the validity of such sales, or to