Case law

Terre Haute v. Phillips

191 Ind. 374 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 17, 1921

The mere fact that her mother testified as a witness was not sufficient to establish that the daughter was emancipated, and entitled to her own earnings. 18. … Some of them were erroneous in declaring, in positive language, rules which should have been modified by some qualifying phrase, such as “in the exercise of ordinary care.”

Niblack v. Goodman

67 Ind. 174 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1879

contained in some writing signed by him, would be such evidence as would take a suit upon the judgment without the operation of the statute of limitations, a point which we need not and do not decide in this case, we are clearly … Niblack,was appointed and qualified as administrator of the estate of said decedent, and had since been and then was the administrator of said estate.

Collins v. State

275 Ind. 86 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1981

Thus, the charge in the information did include the crime of which defendant was eventually convicted, and the relevancy of the exhibit is established. … The evidence produced here was clearly enough to withstand the motion.

Stephenson v. State

110 Ind. 358 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1887

The case cited by the author does not hold that the strength,, or relative strength, of a person may be established by the opinions of witnesses. … That section, as its terms clearly show, has reference exclusively to civil causes. It has no reference whatever to criminal causes.

Kestler v. State

227 Ind. 274 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1949

But it is clearly apparent that the impact of these prejudicial errors have so distorted the issues under the evidence that the substantial rights of the appellant to a fair and impartial trial were destroyed. … This instruction failed to state what may be “qualifying facts,” and was a mandatory misstatement of a rule permitting an inference of fact to be drawn by the jury. See McHargue v.

Walker v. State ex rel. Stinson

176 Ind. 40 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1911

If payment as claimed were clearly shown by the evidence, appellants’ contention *51 would have to be sustained. … Clearly it was never lessened.

Jennifer Pennington v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc.

Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 9, 2024

We think that Beacon failed to carry its initial burden of establishing these facts. … Sawyer was clearly qualified to give an expert opinion on Beacon’s standard of care as an operator involved in designing the pool.

State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen v. Carroll Circuit Court

Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 8, 2024

United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988), which includes his choice of qualified counsel, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624 (1989). … The opinion cites nothing from our Court—or any court—establishing this rule.

Public Service Commission v. City of Indianapolis

193 Ind. 37 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1922

Electric Corporation for purposes of rates which it may make in the future will be made and determined entirely independent of - and unaffected by its finding herein,” and that such finding shall not affect rates to be established … Interpreted in the light of the facts we have stated, the provisions last quoted clearly authorize any and all corporations organized and operating as public utilities to buy from and sell to each other, on terms fixed by

DeVault v. State

254 Ind. 546 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1970

DeVAULT was the duly elected, qualified and acting Trustee of Calumet Township, Lake County, Indiana; that JERRY N. … Our Supreme Court has clearly indicated that: ‘A verdict based merely upon suspicion, opportunity, probability, conjecture, speculation, and unreasonable inferences of guilt gleaned from the vague circumstances in the record

Roth v. State ex rel. Kurtz

158 Ind. 242 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1902

No other executive or administrative departments shall be established in such city. * * * Each department shall have power to prescribe rules and regulations not inconsistent with any statute or ordinance, or regulation established … The statute pertaining to the government of the prison in question provided that “all the officers shall hold their respective offices until their successors shall have been elected (or) appointed and qualified.”

Bunker v. National Gypsum Co.

441 N.E.2d 8 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1982

Other evidence was presented, however, which clearly indicates a direct correlation between the number of years of exposure to asbestos and the incidence of asbestosis. … These are well established rules. This Court has repeated and elaborated upon these rules in Sidle v.

Dixon v. State

256 Ind. 266 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 6, 1971

In so doing the Circuit Court relied upon Griswold, supra, holding that acts committed between consenting husband and wife were immune from prosecution under the statute under the theory of invasion of right of privacy. … These four cases clearly demonstrate the problem that appellee claims does not exist. In Glover v. State, supra , the appellant was charged with fellatio, i.e., mouth-male genital contact between two persons.

D & M HEALTHCARE, INC. v. Kernan

800 N.E.2d 898 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 17, 2003

The Function of Section 14 Because the language of Section 14 does not clearly resolve the question before us, it is appropriate to look to the purpose of the provision to illuminate its meaning. … ., calling for an exception to immunity when the effect is a direct and foreseeable result in this country); Hudson v.

Burris v. State

558 N.E.2d 1067 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1990

Second, the record establishes failure to investigate mitigation. … Clearly, this total absence of advocacy falls outside Strickland's "wide range of professionally competent assistance." 867 F.2d at 368 .

Kirsch v. Braun

153 Ind. 247 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1899

The new committee failed to qualify. … The third section clearly indicates the purpose and scope of that notice.

Kimberly R. Anderson v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 13, 2025

This case addresses what qualifies as an illegal sentence. … In recent years, we have issued sev- eral opinions establishing various rules about appeal waivers and appel- late review of them. In Creech v.

Heather N. Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc.

997 N.E.2d 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 29, 2013

But we agree with the Court of Appeals majority that Kesling has established an issue of fact as to her fraud claim based on the salesperson’s statements. … A criminal statute is unconstitutionally vague “if its prohibitions are not clearly defined,” or “its terms invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.” Klein v.

Davis v. Sexton, County Treasurer

210 Ind. 138 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1936

Money on deposit, checks, and drafts are not moneyed capital in competition with national banks, and clearly not considered so under the amendment of the statute. … If this could be done, then the shares of the non-residents would clearly be taxed at a greater rate than those of the resident owner.

Pruitt v. State

834 N.E.2d 90 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2005

The ultimate finding is therefore not clearly erroneous and we affirm. C. … Pruitt did not qualify as being substantially impaired in adaptive behavior." . See, e.g., State v. Grell, 205 Ariz. 57 , 66 P.3d 1234, 1239 (2003); Money v.