Case law

Walter v. State

208 Ind. 231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 16, 1935

The theory of the state, which was adopted by the trial court, and which affected many of the instructions, is here clearly disclosed. … That the legislature contemplated proof of a fraudulent intent is clearly indicated by the last clause of the statute, which seeks to establish insolvency within thirty days after the deposit is received as prima facie evidence

Schmidt v. City of Indianapolis

168 Ind. 631 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1907

Where a municipal regulation is adopted, which would be lawful if intended for one purpose, and unlawful if for another, the presumption is that the purpose was lawful, unless the contrary clearly appears. Johnson v. … which upon the same terms are withheld to citizens residing outside of said city, and denies to citizens of other states privileges and immunities granted to citizens of Indiana.

Ayres v. State

178 Ind. 453 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 6, 1912

Counsel for appellant admit that as to infants the offense is clearly defined in each case, but they argue that there could have been no reason for prohibiting handing samples of medicine to adults at their homes, when the … It is also urged that the act is invalid because in violation of article 1, §23, of the Constitution, prohibiting the granting of “privileges and immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all cit *458

State v. Lombardo

738 N.E.2d 653 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 3, 2000

Four federal circuits have held that the Federal Wiretap Act does not immunize inter-spousal wiretaps. See Heggy v. … Two federal circuits have held that Title III does immunize interspousal wiretaps. See Simpson v.

J.A.W. v. Marion Co. Dept. of Welfare

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1998

(footnote: 7) After establishing a presumption, we must balance indicators of immunity to see if they consistently support or contradict the presumptive immunity status. … (footnote: 15) Nevertheless, we think they would have qualified under the catch-all phrase before 1986.

Ayres v. Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

493 N.E.2d 1229 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 11, 1986

Chapter 11 is concerned with the establishment of fire protection districts. … It is clearly the intention of the Legislature to recognize volunteer fire departments as instrumentalities of local government regardless of which of the five methods used.

Burke v. Bennett

907 N.E.2d 529 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2009

In contrast, several of the statute's other provisions clearly refer to a person's past conduct as grounds for disqualification. … Clearly this disqualifier is inapplicable to establish ineligibility in a post-campaign election contest.

City of Terre Haute v. Deckard

243 Ind. 289 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1962

Previously the state and its municipalities had enjoyed complete immunity from liability in the performance of such activity unless, perhaps, this immunity was waived by the purchase of insurance by the municipality under … established, without limitation, in the later act.

Hansford v. State

490 N.E.2d 1083 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1986

Cass' broken ribs would qualify as bodily injury under either the robbery or the burglary statute. Ind.Code § 35-41-1-2 (Burns 1979). … Presumably defendant wished the jury to conclude that had the State witnesses not been granted immunity from prosecution they might. have been prosecuted for the immunized offenses which in turn might have enabled the State

Indiana Gaming Commission v. Moseley

643 N.E.2d 296 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 21, 1994

His supporters declared that the provision was "intended to prohibit the Legislature from establishing monopolies, or granting special privileges." 2 Debates, supra, note 6 at 1395 (remarks of Delegate Pepper of Ohio County … Read originally introduced the equal privileges and immunities language as an addition to our current Article I, section 35.

State Ex Rel. Jackson, Attorney General v. Middleton

215 Ind. 219 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 27, 1939

including costs, fees, and trust funds, which said defendant Middle *233 ton had collected and received as said clerk, and which at the expiration of his term and ever since, he has failed to pay over to his duly elected and qualified … which upon the same terms belong equally to all citizens and has attempted to abridge the privileges and immunities to the citizens of the United States.

Smith v. Pancner

679 N.E.2d 893 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 13, 1997

Summit and PPS were not qualified health providers. Only the two doctors were qualified. … The settlement agreement clearly calls for a release of the defendant, (now Summit by reason of the stipulated dismissal and substitution) "its employees, servants, agents, and representatives and insurer.”

Noojin v. State

730 N.E.2d 672 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2000

These two pieces of testimony presented hearsay that established (1) Noojin was at the Flowers’ apartment shortly before their deaths and (2) Michalak’s statement that Noojin was the killer. … The Court has explained this standard as “not whether in our judgment the sentence is unreasonable, but whether it is clearly, plainly, and obviously so.” Prowell v.

Arthur Walter Seed Co. v. McClure

236 Ind. 666 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 2, 1957

When it is shipped by a common carrier from one state to another, in the course of such an uninterrupted journey, it is clearly immune. … The general rule, applicable here, is that a taxpayer claiming immunity from a tax has the burden of establishing his exemption.” [Emphasis supplied.]

Bushong v. Williamson

790 N.E.2d 467 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2003

Among other things the statute provides substantial immunity for conduct within the scope of the employee’s employment. See I.C. … § 34-13-3-3 (setting forth twenty-two separate categories for which immunity attaches). Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability. Catt v.

State Ex Rel. Miller v. McDonald

260 Ind. 565 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1973

Chapter 933 of the Municipal Code of Evansville, as amended, establishes two basic classifications. … The renting of living space is clearly a “commercial enterprise”; the landlord provides shelter and services in exchange for rent.

Doe v. Shults-Lewis Child & Family Services, Inc.

718 N.E.2d 738 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 8, 1999

We also found that because “plaintiff submitted no affidavits or depositions of qualified witnesses providing expert opinion to support the scientific validity of repressed memory and to establish that her normal powers of … However, guardians are not protected un *746 der Indiana’s parental immunity doctrine. For policy reasons, parental tort immunity shields parents from most personal injury actions brought by minor children.

Dowd v. Harmon

229 Ind. 254 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 1, 1951

Our state determined to establish the Epileptic Village in 1905; the purpose of the institution is expressed in Section 1 of the Act as follows : “There shall be established in this state a village for epileptics, the object … In 1909 our state established the “hospital for insane criminals.”

Cain v. State

261 Ind. 41 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 17, 1973

The application of this principle in criminal cases is well-established in this state and many others. … In other words, defendant wishes us to admit evidence made immune from cross-examination by his own trial strategy. State v. Beach (1896), 147 Ind. 74 , 43 N. E. 949 ; Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company v.

Reed v. State

748 N.E.2d 381 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 2001

Nonetheless, the record establishes that the State’s continued and vigorous opposition to Reed’s efforts to depose Williams and its refusal to grant use immunity until moments before Williams took the … At the beginning of the interview, the prosecutor stated: The State of Indiana is prepared to file a request for immunity, use immunity, which guarantees immunity to Mr.