Case law

Larry Myers v. Crouse-Hinds: GE v. Mary R. Geyman: Owens-Illinois, Inc v. Mary R. Geyman

53 N.E.3d 1160 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 2016

State, 727 N.E.2d 437, 442 (Ind. 2000) ("Contrary to the defendant's assertion that the statute establishes a 'legislative distinction between accessories and principals,' . . . the accomplice liability statute neither establishes … Because the plaintiff has established that Section 2, as construed by Ott, creates two disparately treated classifications in violation of the Indiana Constitution's Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause, we must invalidate

Bleeke v. Lemmon

6 N.E.3d 907 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 16, 2014

The duty to give testimony was qualified at common law by the privilege against self-incrimination. And the Fifth Amendment has embodied this privilege in our fundamental law. … Clearly, this is unacceptable. Id.

Murray v. State

479 N.E.2d 1283 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1985

The fact is that there was direct testimony establishing that Appellant himself was the one who sold these drugs. … The record shows very clearly, however, that the evidence against Appellant here was not wholly circumstantial.

Lowrimore v. State

728 N.E.2d 860 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 2000

R. 24, the trial judge had a duty to appoint two capital-qualified counsel . . . . … the clearly erroneous standard enunciated in Clark.

Smith v. State

500 N.E.2d 190 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 24, 1986

First, he main *192 tains that the identification evidence does not establish that he was the perpetrator. … The victim testified that she could see Smith clearly in court and that he was the man who raped her. A rape conviction may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of the victim. Rutledge v.

Reid v. State

267 Ind. 555 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 6, 1978

The defendant objected to this evidence upon the grounds that the State had failed to establish the reliability of the TMDT and further that Chlebek did not qualify as an expert witness. … That rebuttal evidence is discoverable, however, is clearly established by Wardius v.

Christopher Smith v. State of Indiana

8 N.E.3d 668 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 27, 2014

We will not construe a statute in a manner so clearly contrary to the General Assembly’s view on the subject. … She also clearly articulated her attacker’s identity, the circumstances, the time she was attacked, and the location of the attack.

F.D., G.D., and T.D. b/n/f J.D. and M.D. and J.D. and M.D., individually v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, Evansville Police Dept., and Vanderburgh County Prosecutor's Office

Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 26, 2013

Id. § 34-13-3-3(8).9 Commonly referred to as "law en- forcement immunity," we have said that what is "required to establish immunity [is] that the ac- tivity be one in which government either compels obedience to laws, rules … inquire whether the Legislature intended to make the defendant liable in tort because if every breach of a statute constitutes negligence per se, then “every statute in effect would create an implied right of action—which clearly

Levy v. State

161 Ind. 251 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1903

It must appear very *256 clearly, that the legislation is in conflict with some express provision of the Constitution, or the statute will he upheld.” … The fourth objection, that the act grants special privileges and immunities, is without • foundation. Its provisions apply to all transient merchants, whether residents or nonresidents of the county and State.

City of Indianapolis v. Cauley

164 Ind. 304 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1905

These allegations are clearly sufficient under the rule. … Being erroneous, it must be held sufficient to sustain the appeal, unless it clearly appears from the whole record that it was harmless.

Advisory Board v. State ex rel. Smith

170 Ind. 439 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 1908

The facts averred in the complaint bring the case clearly within the act of 1903, supra, and we therefore hold the petition sufficient to support the action. 1. … The action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to each of these returns was clearly right.

City of South Bend v. Lewis

138 Ind. 512 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1894

The words ‘qualified voters' as used in the constitution must be taken * not those qualified and entitled to vote, but those qualified and actually voting. … From what.we have said, we think it clearly appears that four leading principles may be. considered as fully established, namely: First.

Higgins v. Swygman

194 Ind. 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 13, 1923

And where a court is charged with the duty of causing a public drain to be constructed, after having established it and ordered its construction, it clearly has jurisdiction to entertain ' a proper petition by a qualified … However clearly a complaint or petition may show the existence of a right of action in favor of somebody who did not file it, a demurrer under the fifth subdivision of §344 Burns 1914 (Acts 1911 p. 415, §2) should be sustained

Elam v. State ex rel. Taylor

75 Ind. 518 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1881

Criminal courts are hereby established in each of the counties of Marion, Allen and Vigo; said court in the county of Marion, shall commence its terms on the first Mondays of January and July of each year, and in the counties … We are clearly of the opinion* that there is no provision, either in the sections quoted or in any other section of the act, from which it can be fairly inferred even,’that the General Assembly intended to abolish the existing

Department of Local Government Finance v. Roller Skating Rink Operators Ass'n

853 N.E.2d 1262 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 22, 2006

of the State Board only when the State Board’s decision is unsupported by substantial evidence, is arbitrary or capricious, constitutes an abuse of discretion, is contrary to a constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … It does not meet the “public benefit” test early established in Travelers’ and later elaborated in Ft. Wayne Sports Club. The State Board found: 18. . . .

Sun Oil Co. v. GROSS INCOME TAX DIV., ETC.

238 Ind. 111 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1958

Appellant was a New Jersey corporation qualified to and doing business in Indiana. … no tax immunity.

State Ex Rel. Zink v. Hoggatt

200 Ind. 338 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1928

Township, of Washington County, in the State of Indiana, and fully qualified in all legal respects to hold the office of trustee of Howard Township. … E. 794 , this court held that where the title to the office is clearly an unsettled question, a claimant to the office may be enjoined by one occupying the office under a claim of right, until the former shall have established

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hadley

170 Ind. 204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1907

This objection was clearly untenable, and the witness was rightly permitted to answer the question. … The ability of a neophyte or of a professor in elocutionary work may be shown by the opinions of those qualified to testify, and the father is prima facie qualified to pass an opinion upon the elocutionary ability of his

State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Williams

238 Ind. 407 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1958

Appellant promptly *409 qualified and assumed office. … Clearly under the above provision the years 1950, 1954, 1958, etc., were years “proper to elect” such sheriff.

State Ex Rel. Spencer v. Criminal Court, Marion Co.

214 Ind. 551 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 13, 1938

It is alleged in the petition that the relator is the duly elected, qualified, and acting prosecuting attorney of Marion County; *553 that the respondent, Frank P. … It cannot be doubted that, where it is established that the prosecuting attorney is an interested party, or otherwise clearly incapacitated, the court may appoint an attorney to represent the interests of *557 the state.