Case law

Moore v. Korty

11 Ind. 341 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 11, 1858

Indeed, it has been repeatedly decided that “a receipt may be explained, qualified, or even contradicted, by any evidence competent to establish a fact.” … In view of both instructions, we are of opinion that the jury may have been misled by the former, which seems to us to be clearly erroneous. Per Curiam.— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

James v. State

643 N.E.2d 321 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1994

It is true that the State alleged and proved two prior separate felony convictions of appellant in order to establish the habitual offender status. … However, if the evidence presented in fact does not qualify as mitigating, the trial court is not required to explain that the factor does not exist. Fugate v. State (1993), Ind., 608 N.E.2d 1370 ; Hammons v.

Filter Specialists, Inc. v. Brooks

906 N.E.2d 835 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 21, 2009

Under those circumstances the Supreme Court declared the employee could establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by establishing “(i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified … To rebut this presumption, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254.

State v. Banks

48 Ind. 197 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1874

a wife can not be found guilty of larceny for stealing the goods of her husband, and that is upon the principle that the husband and wife are, in the-eye of the law, one person; but this rule is properly and reasonably qualified … She thereby determines her quality of wife, and her property in her husband’s goods ceases.” *199 We have made a careful examination of the authorities, and they very clearly establish the following propositions: 1.

Reburn v. State

421 N.E.2d 604 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 9, 1981

The jury was instructed that it could properly consider evidence tending to establish motive or lack of motive in arriving at its verdict, but that proof of motive was not essential to conviction. … It is not unfair or unintelligible as contended, as it clearly empowers the jury to consider lack of evidence revealing the accused’s personal reasons for committing the acts shown.

Graham v. State

441 N.E.2d 1348 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1982

The evidence in this case clearly supports the jury’s inference that defendant committed the burglary. … All of these exhibits were connected to defendant by the testimony of a police officer, a qualified fingerprint identification expert, who compared the fingerprints in state’s exhibit No. 1, which were known to be defendant

State v. Hamer

211 Ind. 570 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 5, 1936

The instruction is as follows: “I further instruct you if you find from a fair preponderance of all of the evidence that a market value has been established, as of May 23, 1932, for the strip of ground taken, then I instruct … We think the court was in error in holding that the witness was not qualified to testify for the reason he had been one of the appraisers.

City of Indianapolis v. Buckner

233 Ind. 32 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1954

It is established that the Legislature has power to create a municipal corporation for the purpose of protecting public health. Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of Muncie (1939), 215 Ind. 330 , 19 N. … Such provisions are clearly unconstitutional. However, these provisions are severable, and, so severed, the remainder of the act is workable.

Welsh, Governor v. Sells

244 Ind. 423 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 30, 1963

The intention of the legislature in this respect is clearly reflected in Burns’ §64-2631. *439 The present Act is amendatory to the 1933 Act. … No man’s property shall be taken . . . without just compensation . . . ,” and Section 23 (privileges and immunities clause).

Johnson v. State

254 Ind. 465 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 30, 1970

That he is an attorney at law duly qualified and admitted to practice in the Courts in the State of Indiana, including the Superior Court of Morgan County, Indiana. 2. … It is clearly settled, however, that the trial court weighs the evidence and has the prerogative of determining which witnesses to believe.

Pedigo v. Grimes

113 Ind. 148 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1887

We must, therefore, uphold the finding of the trial court on this question of fact, unless it is clearly shown to be wrong. … Bodily residence in a place, *153 coupled with an intention to make such a place a home, will establish a domicile or residence.”

Phillips v. State

550 N.E.2d 1290 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1990

Further, this Court has approved the use of hypotheticals as a method of qualifying a child witness, either by the witness, Russell, 540 N.E.2d 1222 (child witness asked during qualifying examination to give an example of … Clearly appellant knew at some point prior to trial that Watford might have information relevant to his cause.

Ball Memorial Hospital v. Freeman

245 Ind. 71 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 21, 1964

In my opinion, these facts clearly distinguish the case at bar from those cited and relied upon in the majority opinion. … charitable hospital for error or negligence, which is assumed to have existed on the part of the agents and servants of the hospital, the majority opinion resorts to an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to establish

Chicago & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Sutton

130 Ind. 405 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 23, 1892

The answer alleges, in substance, that he was duly elected and qualified as such supervisor, and was, when said acts were done, acting in that capacity; that on the 24th day of August, 1888, a petition for a public highway … This, however, we wish it clearly understood we do not affirm.

Reed v. Schultz

Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 20, 1999

Schultz were so entitled, the Rule 56 materials show that he was removed for just cause, and (3) the Superintendent is entitled to qualified immunity from any claim of damages. Dr. … (f) A person who otherwise qualifies as a hearing officer is not considered an employee of the agency solely because the person is paid by the agency to serve as a hearing officer.

Conner v. President of New-Albany

1 Blackf. 88 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1820

that the owner of wild, uncultivated land, has a sufficient possession to enable him to maintain trespass; and that the possession of such property follows the title, and continues with it, until an adverse possession is clearly … The fee *91 of the land, over which a highway is dedicated to the public, or established by law, continues in the original proprietor.

State Board of Tax Commissioners v. New Castle Lodge 147, Loyal Order of Moose, Inc.

765 N.E.2d 1257 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 12, 2002

This Court reviews Tax Court decisions under the “clearly erroneous standard” provided in Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. … This alone is not adequate to qualify for exemption as charitable.

Haas v. Holder, Trustee

218 Ind. 263 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1941

On these fundamental concepts rests the rule that when a court of chancery has once acquired jurisdiction of a cause, it may go on to complete adjudication, even to the extent of establishing legal rights and creating legal … In other words, the question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the chancellor, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so clearly wrong as to amount to an abuse of discretion.” 21 C.

Harrison v. State

507 N.E.2d 565 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 11, 1987

The sole assignment of error is that there was a fatal variance between the information and the proof, in that the mere holding of a mortgage by the Southern Baptist Mission Board did not qualify either as ownership or a … The allegation clearly stated that the burglary cccurred at the New Mount Olive Baptist Church.

State Ex Rel. Reiman v. Kimmell

212 Ind. 639 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1937

They duly qualified as commissioners. … The judgment of the lower court is clearly right and should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.