Case law

Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. FIELDS

254 Ind. 219 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 5, 1970

The fact of damage was thus established. … Clearly there is no reversible error here.

Sauerheber v. State

698 N.E.2d 796 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 1, 1998

In order to qualify as fundamental error, an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible. Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind.1995). … This is clearly outweighed by the relative brevity of the delay, Sauerheber’s decision not to assert his speedy trial right', and the absence of any prejudice as a result of the delay.

Lamb v. Cain

14 L.R.A. 518 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1891

It shall also have power to establish and manage any other organization or institution within the Church. “ See. 9. The general conference shall have power to establish a court of appeals. “ Sec. 10. … Flickinger, duly qualified and acting bishops of the church, publishing and proclaiming the result of the vote of the church, in accord with the provisions of the general conference of 1885, said result being as above set

McCullough v. Union Traction Co.

206 Ind. 585 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1933

Brady was appointed receiver for the Union Traction Company of Indiana; that he qualified and took possession of the property of said Company on said day; finding number (21), found that prior to June 19, 1925, no suit was … Finding number (59) found that the defendant Company in the operation and conduct of said business ever after the establishment of rates by the said Public Service Commission, and establishment of said system of bookkeeping

Garner v. Gordon

41 Ind. 92 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1872

In our opinion the above ruling of the court was clearly erroneous. … When proof of either good or bad general character is admissible, it is competent for the party seeking to establish character, after he has proved either a good or bad character at the time of the trial, to show how long

Bouye v. State

699 N.E.2d 620 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 20, 1998

To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a defendant must show both that his counsel’s performance was sufficiently deficient, and that prejudice resulted from that deficiency. Strickland v. … The defendant clearly challenged Witherspoon’s credibility by contending that the October 6 statement was made to conceal or minimize Witherspoon’s own involvement in the murders.

Town of Zionsville, Indiana v. Town of Whitestown, Indiana, and Angel Badillo

49 N.E.3d 91 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2016

As noted above, the GMA provision authorizing a reorganized government entity to exercise the powers of the organizing entities is qualified by the phrase "if authorized by the plan of reorganization . . . ." Ind. … From its statutory language, however, the GMA clearly permits the reorganization of political subdivisions that are "adjacent" in the sense that they are "connected by a strip of land that is [not] less than one hundred fifty

Jerry E Russell, Sr. v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2024

“An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating factor requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the record.” Id. at 838. … He has earned certificates for work done with nail-guns, saws, drill presses, and other hand-tools, and gotten qualified to operate forklifts.

Brunaugh v. State

173 Ind. 483 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1910

The instruction in question is clearly applicable to the evidence.in the record. … Rep. 234 , it is held that the innocence of the agent through whom the crime is perpetrated is a question for the jury, and that where the evidence tends only to establish guilt or guilty knowledge of the agent, but clearly

Shell Oil Co. v. Meyer

705 N.E.2d 962 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1998

Those laws were clearly before the legislature at the time Indiana’s UST statute was drafted, and later amended. … Finally, owners and operators must establish evidence of financial responsibility with minimum coverage of at least $1,000,000 for each occurrence. Ind.Code §§ 13-23-4-1 to 7 (1998).

City of Logansport v. Larose

1 Ind. L. Rep. 587 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1881

The court clearly erred, we think, in overruling the appellant’s. demurrer to this third paragraph of the complaint. … In another view of this legalizing act, it must be held, we think, to be clearly unconstitutional and void.

Wall v. State

51 Ind. 453 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1875

This part of the instruction is incorrect, and there is nothing in the other parts of the instruction to qualify or correct it. … Where the necessity is clearly apparent, and is such as would convince a reasonable man that it actually existed, and he ’believed that it did so exist, it is sufficient; as when one antagonist angrily approaches another

Price v. State

622 N.E.2d 954 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1993

Put another way, there is within each provision of our Bill of Rights a cluster of essential values which the legislature may qualify but not alienate. See Palmer, supra, at 65-66. … Clearly, then, abating excessive noise is an objective our legislature may legitimately pursue. This does not, however, end our inquiry.

John O. Study v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 4, 2015

Though other issues regarding the concealment-tolling provision have been addressed, the specific question of what conduct qualifies as concealing evidence of the offense has not been answered by this Court. … In Sloan, this Court addressed when tolling of the statute of limitations ends, after concealment of the offense has been established. 947 N.E.2d at 920.

Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Gaffney

119 Ind. 455 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1889

It is true that the employee in that case was a minor, but he was nineteen years of age, a well developed and apparently strong man, and, to all appearances, as well qualified to understand and provide against the hazard … While it appears that Fisher was foreman of the establishment, King had charge of the construction of the turn-table, and Fisher directed plaintiff to go with King and do whatever he directed. * * * Here King was foreman

Yerano Martinez v. Jeffrey Smith

Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 8, 2026

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S‐CT‐112 | April 8, 2026 Page 1 of 8  Most often, negligence claims may be more clearly understood by first “recognizing that every actor has an obligation to behave reasonably … But the question we confront is whether there is a good reason for the common law to effectively immunize unreasonable conduct that presents the risk of serious, even fatal, injury.

Wisehart v. State

693 N.E.2d 23 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1998

He has not established that the evidence was not available at trial. He has not established that due diligence was used to discover this evidence in time for trial. … Their evidence clearly shows that there [were]....

Roeschlein v. Thomas

258 Ind. 16 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1972

The office of Chief Justice of Indiana is created and a system of discipline, removal, and retirement of judges is established. … Also, § 29-4204, supra, states in part: “The proposed constitutional amendment or amendments shall be stated on such ballots in words sufficient to clearly designate the same, and such statement or statements shall be printed

Anthony H. Dye v. State of Indiana

972 N.E.2d 853 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 31, 2012

That provision establishes criminal penalties for persons who violate the laws regulating the carrying of handguns and elevates those penalties from misdemeanor to felony status under certain conditions, including when the … The statutes draw temporal distinctions (a non-handgun related serious violent felony more than fifteen years old would have no impact under the handgun statute, whereas it would still qualify under the SVF statute); geographic

MATTHEW H THOMAS DAVIS v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · May 3, 2023

But then, contrary to the written agreement, the court qualified its statement by saying: The one exception is because you have a plea agreement that provides the court some discretion about where your sentence … App. 2008) (finding no valid waiver because the trial court clearly stated at the plea hearing that the defendant’s agreement allowed an appeal).