Case law

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

113 Ind. 544 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1887

The carrier clearly violated a legal duty in not stopping the train a sufficient length of time to permit the appellee to alight in safety. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346 (49 Am. … Rep. 401 ), bears upon the question here under discussion, inasmuch as it decides that, (1) where the trial court adjudges that a witness is qualified to give an opinion, the appellate court can not review the decision; (

Noblesville Casting Division of TRW, Inc. v. Prince

438 N.E.2d 722 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 11, 1982

First, it is well settled that an expert witness is not permitted to give an opinion where the jurors are as well qualified to form an opinion based on the facts presented. Green v. … Clearly the results of the test increased the likelihood that the bullets found in the defendant’s pocket were from the same box as the bullet removed from the victim.

Coleman v. State

703 N.E.2d 1022 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 29, 1998

Petitioners must establish their grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind.Post-Conviction Rule 1, § 5. … A post-conviction court’s findings and judgment will be reversed only if clearly erroneous; “to determine whether the findings or judgment are clearly erroneous, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and

Kirchoff v. Selby

703 N.E.2d 644 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 8, 1998

There are, however, important differences between the language of Indiana's § 19 and federal § 12 that clearly anticipate somewhat different liability under the two statutes. … Farm Estates, Inc., 83 Mich.App. 702 , 269 N.W.2d 270 (1978) (directors and officers liable where they did not establish statutory defense of lack of knowledge). 3.

Vandalia Railroad v. Stillwell

181 Ind. 267 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 10, 1914

Dec. 339 , from which case the rule became one of general application, so that the statute under consideration marks a distinct departure from the established rule respecting fellow servants. … There was clearly reasonable foundation for discrimination.” In Soon Hing v. Crowley (1885), 113 U. S. 703 , 5 Sup. Ct. 730, 28 L.

Malone v. State

441 N.E.2d 1339 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1982

The mere repitition of similar crimes is not enough to qualify for an exception to the general rule. Williams v. State, 417 N.E.2d at 332 ; Willis v. State, 268 Ind. at 272 , 374 N.E.2d at 522 . … This is especially probable when the circumstantial evidence can clearly support either party’s account.

Stephenson v. State

742 N.E.2d 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 25, 2001

However, the record clearly indicates that the trial court immediately sustained Defendant’s objection as to this particular question. As such, Defendant cannot now claim error on appeal. … Forensic testing established that the fatal bullets matched those fired from the SKS assault rifle owned by Defendant.

Forrest Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2020

“First, if an employee establishes that ‘adequate independent consideration’ supports the employment contract, the Court generally will conclude that the parties intended to establish a relationship in which the employer … Yet the Court excuses the lack of a subpoena by observing that Perkins believed he had to appear and testify—an error the Court describes as one of fact, in contrast to an error of law, which we have held does not qualify

Forrest Perkins v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 31, 2020

“First, if an employee establishes that ‘adequate independent consideration’ supports the employment contract, the Court generally will conclude that the parties intended to establish a relationship in which the employer … Yet the Court excuses the lack of a subpoena by observing that Perkins believed he had to appear and testify—an error the Court describes as one of fact, in contrast to an error of law, which we have held does not qualify

Metsker v. Whitsell

181 Ind. 126 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1914

Washington to take part in the hearing of the cause, for the reason that he had, before qualifying as county commissioner, executed, as surety, the appeal bond of Wm. V. Rooker. … On the other hand, if the proposed work were established, the costs of the appeal were properly taxable as a part of the costs of the proceeding.

Smith v. Sparks Milling Company

219 Ind. 576 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 2, 1942

Their payment by the Government to the vendor and by the vendor to the Government was clearly and manifestly contemplated by the parties. … Again such a holding would run counter to the well established rule as laid down in the excerpt above quoted from Johnson v.

J Q R v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 12, 2025

We review these evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the ruling is either clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or when it misinterprets the law … The qualified adult must knowingly and voluntarily waive the child’s rights, and the child must knowingly and voluntarily join the waiver. Id. § -1(2)(A), (D).

Allen Etc. v. Van Buren Township Etc.

243 Ind. 665 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1962

Dictionary as "to establish"; "determine with certainty"; and "to make certain — exact." … It establishes as a debt limitation "four per centum of the value of the taxable property" in the district. The word "value" is not limited or qualified by any adjectives.

Goodwin v. State

96 Ind. 550 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1883

and which keeps within the range of the relevant testimony, because the prisoner’s counsel may, on cross-examination, add to the hypothetical case supposed by the prosecutor, such facts as he deems the evidence to have established … We are not disposed to question the soundness of the rule that instructions must not be contradictory; but we do affirm that one instruction may be qualified and explained by another intimately connected with it, and that

Akins v. State

429 N.E.2d 232 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1981

Clearly it was error and this Court should say so. The controlling statute, Ind. § 35-3.1-1-2 (Burns 1979 Repl.), is unambiguous. … In finding the error harmless on this basis, the majority characterizes subsection "(c)" as designed to establish "witness disclosure requirements."

Fowler v. Duhme

143 Ind. 248 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1896

generally, or whenever it might happen, but in the contingent sense of death occurring within a particular time, in which case the devise over was to take effect by substitution, and not as a limitation engrafted on and qualifying … These are technical words aptly used and clearly creating an estate in fee simple.

Reed v. Reid

980 N.E.2d 277 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 19, 2012

In Defendants’ view “This evidence establishes that David Reed consented to the placement of the Forge material on his property in June 2004 that contained clearly visible waste fragments.” Id. … In that case, an insurance company sold annuities to a business customer for the business’s tax-qualified contributory retirement plan.

Brown v. Clow

158 Ind. 403 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 19, 1902

The answer was clearly insufficient, and the demurrer to it was properly sustained. … association as directors to manage the affairs of said company for the first year, and serve with the present directors until the annual meeting of the stockholders, to be held on, etc., and until their successors are elected and qualified

TINDER, PROS. ATTY. v. Clarke Auto Co., Inc.

238 Ind. 302 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1958

This court first considered Article 1, § 23, supra: "`The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges, or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens … Salesmen for such establishments are customarily employed upon a commission basis only, which arrangement almost compels them to work whenever the establishment is open and especially on Sunday when special appeal is made

Galloway v. State

938 N.E.2d 699 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 2010

The defendant bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence.7 I.C. § 35-41-4-1(b). … Davidson‟s basic view was that it was unlikely that Galloway qualified as insane on the basis of a “very thin slice of disorganized thinking.” (Tr. at 228.)