Case law

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc. v. Markley

856 N.E.2d 65 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 8, 2006

Federal authority interpreting FRCP 60(b)(3) clearly establishes that relief under subsection (b)(3) is available for both unintentional and intentional conduct. 12 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 60.43[1][a] (3d ed. 1997) (citing … Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 923 (1st Cir. 1988) (“Accidents—at least avoidable ones—[are] not [] immune from the reach of the rule.”).

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

690 N.E.2d 238 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 24, 1997

This conclusion is also consistent with the firmly established administrative law of this state concerning exhaustion of administrative remedies. See, e.g., Austin 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.

Burton v. State

232 Ind. 246 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 5, 1953

Guilt is not established by mere opportunity to commit crime, nor can a conviction be sustained on speculation or conjecture. … Procedural methods and safeguards should be established and clearly pointed out.

Peck v. City of Michigan City

149 Ind. 670 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1898

In the first of the above-cited cases, a case in all respects like the present, the liability is clearly shown. … No authority has been cited to sustain that position, nor is it reconciliable with the well established doctrine of the common law.

Jenkins v. State

627 N.E.2d 789 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1993

The technician manipulated the samples under the supervisor's direction and followed the established protocols. A similar challenge was made in that case. … The work product privilege is a qualified one and can be waived. Id. What constitutes a waiver of the privilege depends upon the circumstances. Id.

N In Comm Trans Dist v. Chicago S Shore/S Bend RR

Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 8, 1998

As Justice Cardozo succinctly summarized in Herndon : “The settled doctrine is that when a constitutional privilege or immunity has been denied for the first time by a ruling made upon appeal, a litigant thus surprised may … Indeed, this case illustrates what can happen when the established rules on full faith and credit are not respected.

Schneck v. City of Jeffersonville

152 Ind. 204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1898

S., on page 202, the same court again said: “In cases like this, legislative ratification is the equivalent of original authority, and what is clearly implied in a statute is as effectual as what is expressed. * * * . … of the taxpayers of the city of Jeffersonville to be taken without just compensation, and is therefore violative of article 1, section 21, of the Constitution; (2) it denies to 'the taxpayers of the city privileges and immunities

Walden v. State

895 N.E.2d 1182 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 20, 2008

offender phase of a trial that the Legislature has ordered a jury trial to determine habitual offender status.2 For many years, Justice Dickson urged this Court to acknowledge that if the Legislature had intended for three qualifying … State, 203 Ind. 581, 181 N.E. 507, 512 (1932), or the right to make, repeal, disregard, or ignore clearly existing law. See Fleenor v. State, 514 N.E.2d 80, 87 (Ind. 1987); Hubbard v.

Coddington v. Canaday

157 Ind. 243 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1901

said order, empowered and directed to bring and prosecute in his own name, as such receiver, all actions necessary in the discharge of his duties as receiver; that the said Canaday accepted the said appointment, was duly qualified … The powers and duties of the appellants, as directors of the Citizens Bank, were thus clearly defined by the statute. These obligations were voluntarily assumed, and the appellants were bound to perform them.

Morthland v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co.

220 Ind. 692 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1942

The said Morthland was appointed and qualified as such trustee and as such filed exceptions to the 1937 annual report filed by the Lincoln, to which exceptions the Lincoln filed a reply. … This provision of the reinsurance contract clearly contemplated that there would be some Northern States policies rewritten by the Lincoln, and nothing in this provision prohibits such rewriting.

Scott v. Indiana Board of Agriculture

192 Ind. 311 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1922

That act creates and establishes the Indiana board of agriculture (an appellee) , to consist of sixteen members, in addition to whom the Governor of the state and the dean of agriculture of Purdue University are ex-officio … An act of the legislature will not be declared unconstitutional unless the fact that it violates one or more provisions of the Constitution so clearly appears as to exclude all doubt.

Sholes v. Sholes

760 N.E.2d 156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 2001

In addition, the court entered a qualified domestic relations order directing General Motors Corporation, David's former employer, to pay 100% of David's retirement benefits to Christine. … Twice in Pollard, this Court clearly stated that attorneys may not be foreed to work without compensation.

Carter v. State

738 N.E.2d 665 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 16, 2000

A diagram in the medical records clearly shows two holes in Jackson’s buttock – one where the bullet entered and one where it exited. … Here the State has shown that at the very least, Carter was sentenced to two years in prison, which qualifies as a felony sentence.

State Ex Rel. Ayer v. Ewing

231 Ind. 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1952

Since he employed qualified teachers for all the schools in his township he performed his duties in full in that matter. … As stated in Brown, Jurisdiction (2d Ed.) § 32, pp. 19, 20: "If the jurisdiction of the court is derived from statutory authority, in a proceeding not in accordance with the ordinary proceedings of the common law or the established

Foltz, Van Camp Hdw., Etc. v. City of Indpls.

234 Ind. 656 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1955

The result of such an act by the state would raise the issue of granting an immunity against extortionate practices and even confiscatory taking of property from users where a monopolistic condition was created. … On the contrary, the statute clearly and in concise terms merely provides that "the commission, shall have no power to determine or set the amount of any charges made to the public" by the utility.

Keller J. Mellowitz v. Ball State University

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 21, 2023

that pandemic‐related emergency orders did not create new causes of action, shielding other government entities from pandemic‐related class actions for contract claims, and establishing immunity from tort claims for governmental … We cannot simply assume that Section 7 has the practical effect of foreclosing students from pursuing their claims because “every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality unless clearly overcome

Natural Resources Commission v. AMAX Coal Co.

638 N.E.2d 418 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1994

Clearly a state may, in the exercise of its police powers, impose restrictions upon certain types of land use. … The applicant has the burden of establishing that his application complies with all the requirements of this article.

Corcoran v. State

739 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 6, 2000

This claim does not qualify for the “fundamental error” exception, and it was forfeited by procedural default. … This Court has clearly held this Indiana capital sentencing procedure does not violate Section 18. Saylor v. State, 686 N.E.2d 80, 88 (Ind.1997); Harrison v. State, 644 N.E.2d 1243, 1258 (Ind.1995) (citing Fleenor v.

Antonio Turner v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2025

Second, the legislature clearly spelled out when using reasonable force or deadly force is “justified.” See I.C. § 35-41-3-2(c). … State, 177 N.E.3d 412, 418 (Ind. 2021) (reinterpreting a provision of the Indiana Tort Claims Act to avoid granting “blanket immunity to the state in every circumstance involving inclement weather”).

STATE EX REL. FOX, ETC. v. LaPORTE CIR. CT.

236 Ind. 69 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1956

On June 1, 1955, the defendant filed an affidavit for a change of venue from the judge and respondent, Fleishbein, was subsequently selected and qualified. … Courts were established for the purpose of administering justice judicially, and it has been said that their powers are coequal with their duties.