Case law

Guetig v. State

66 Ind. 94 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1879

In the ease before us the qualified opinion of each juror objected to was formed upon hearsay evidence or newspaper reports, not upon facts known to the juror, and was evidently of a character that would readily yield to … In our opinion instruction numbered 9 is so clearly right that we do not discuss it. We can scarcely approve of the last sentence of instruction numbered 10; but it contains nothing of which the appellant can complain.

State v. Springfield Township

6 Ind. 83 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1854

We are clearly of opinion that it does not. … The several counties of this state shall be held liable for the preservation of said fund, and the payment of the annual interest thereon, at the rate established by law. “ Sec. 4.

Krutz v. Craig

53 Ind. 561 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1876

For aught that is shown by the record, it might have been made verbally and entered on the order-book by the clerk; but it does appear clearly that no written cause was at that term filed with the motion. … The principle governing such cases is familiar and well established. Skillen v. Jones, 44 Ind. 136 ; Cobble v. Tomlinson, 50 Ind. 550 .

Reed v. State

491 N.E.2d 182 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 7, 1986

Appellant's Affidavit of Emergency on August 29, 1983, alleging the expiration of the 120 day period did not qualify as a timely objection to preserve his rights under the IAD. … The trial court clearly instructed the jury as to the proper standard of proof to be applied in a criminal case.

West Clark Community Schools v. H.L.K.

Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1998

This conclusion is also consistent with the firmly established administrative law of this state concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies. See , e.g. , Avon Lakes Joint Venture v. … "Do you mean a judge could order a school to admit a student to a limited-enrollment class because the judge thought the student would benefit even if the student did not qualify for the class?" we asked.

Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Berkey

136 Ind. 181 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 31, 1893

Counsel, in their argument, have discussed the first, second, and fifth assignments, and under the well established rule of this court, the assignments of error as to the third and fourth will be considered as waived. … of the law, is a stipulation in every contract for service; and if the servant is injured by reason of defective appliances placed in his hands by the master or his agent, the master is liable for damages, unless he can clearly

Sherman v. Hougland

1 Ind. L. Rep. 91 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1881

The third instruction given by the court is as follows r “ Fraud is never presumed, but must be clearly proven. … The court does not tell the jury that the relationship affords a presumption of fraud, but simply that it is one link in the chain of circumstances tending to establish fraud.

Wade v. McKibben

226 Ind. 76 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1948

In applying the statute and considering the ballots we will have in mind certain general rules established by this court, which we find well stated in Conley v. … While the statutes seek to keep the voter’s ballot secret, so as to prevent corruption in elections, its primary purpose is to provide a means for the *83 selection of officers by the free and untrammeled choice of honest, qualified

Camm v. State

908 N.E.2d 215 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2009

I think clearly speculation on her part that they may or may not have occurred, or could have possibly occurred. … We acknowledge that Jervis differs from this case in that Boney was clearly involved in the crimes charged here whereas it was unclear whether the declarant in Jervis was in any way involved.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong

442 N.E.2d 349 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1982

It may consider original cost and cost of reproduction; the opinions upon value given by qualified witnesses; the declarations against interest which may have been made by the insureds; the gainful uses to which the buildings … Although we find no Indiana civil case in which the standard higher than the preponderance of the evidence has been clearly-adopted, higher standards have been clearly recognized and perhaps subtly applied.

State ex rel. Worrell v. Peelle

121 Ind. 495 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1889

But we are not called upon to decide that question, as the general election law clearly authorizes the election of such officer. Section 4678, R. … The appointee of the Governor would hold until his successor was elected at the next general election after he was appointed and until his successor had qualified.

Desmond Turner v. State of Indiana

953 N.E.2d 1039 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 28, 2011

At several points during the trial, the judge allowed evidence over either the State‟s or Turner‟s objection with commentary indicating he clearly understood his role with regard to the evidence. … Later during Clifton‟s direct examination, the State established that at some point Turner‟s mother visited Clifton.

Tulsi Sawlani, M.D. v. Lake County Assessor

Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2025

Statutes are “clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. … And the fact that the Taxpayers’ home is in a gated community with a security guard does not itself establish that the entire plot of land is curtilage.

Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis

235 Ind. 70 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1956

But to say that their findings of fact may be made conclusive where constitutional rights of liberty and property are involved, although the evidence clearly establishes that the findings are wrong and constitutional rights … This witness qualified as an expert on valuations, and after detailing how he arrived at various valuations, testified that it was his opinion that the fair value of the physical properties of the Company was $32,400,--000

Book v. State Office Building Commission

238 Ind. 120 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1958

the invalidating facts; 6 and its invalidity must be clearly shown. 7 A statement by Judge Crumpacker in Scoopmire v. … E. 2d 159 ; hence, it cannot be said that the Legislature would not have passed the Act had it known that members of that body were not qualified to serve as members of the Commission.

Michael J. Lock v. State of Indiana

971 N.E.2d 71 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 26, 2012

Accordingly, we have said that due process requires that a penal statute “clearly define its prohibitions.” Brown, 868 N.E.2d at 467. … If the vehicle Lock was operating qualifies as a “motorized bicycle” then he was not operating a “motor vehicle” for purposes of the driving while suspended statute.

Mode v. Beasley

143 Ind. 306 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1896

“It is a well established principle that courts will take judicial notice of the history of the country and of the State. … In this we think they are clearly right. And if, by virtue of this provision, the petition must be filed with the board, it is equally true that the remonstrance must also be filed before the board of commissioners.

Hart v. State

220 Ind. 469 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 5, 1942

The receipt above quoted clearly shows that the $25 involved was a payment on the mortgage. Only the treasurer was authorized to receive that payment. … There are cases however where a special or qualified property is sufficient to sustain the charge. 29 C. J. S. *484 Embezzlement § 8, p. 676, citing Davis v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 213, 222 , 147 N. E. 766, 770 .

Chapman v. State

556 N.E.2d 927 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 18, 1990

This hardly qualified as information that Click had at any time changed his story nor would it fall in the category of exculpatory evidence as far as appellant was concerned. … We also would note that contrary to appellant's assertion that this first was learned upon reading the presentence investigation report, the record shows that during the examination of Click it clearly was brought *930 out

State Ex Rel. Gramelspacher v. Martin Circuit Court

231 Ind. 114 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 10, 1952

The Acker and Beaman cases were concerned only with this question and are clearly distinguishable *120 from the case at bar. … The right of a qualified voter to register his choice of candidates at such an election is a fundamental constitutional right. State ex rel. Buttz v. Marion Cir.