Case law

Washington v. State

271 Ind. 97 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 14, 1979

We have held that where oral remarks made by the court during voir dire are clearly qualified as not being instructions and where correct instructions are subsequently given, there is no abuse of discretion in giving the … Since the admissibility of lay witness opinion testimony on ultimate fact issues is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and the police officer’s experience was clearly established, there was no error in

Harris v. Raymond

715 N.E.2d 388 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1999

Although defendant points out that there is currently no statute or common law establishing this duty, he did not move to dismiss the claim and rather assumes that he had at least some duty to act. … Any countervailing interest in guarding against imposing potentially burdensome requirements for finding patients who may have relocated can be addressed by qualifying the duty so that the physician or oral surgeon need only

Halbe v. Weinberg

717 N.E.2d 876 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 2000

The record does not clearly disclose whether or not Dr. Weinberg disputes the existence of these calls. … Weinberg's un-contradicted affidavit establishes that he did, in fact, use saline implants.” (Br. Ct.App. at 29.)

Long v. State

743 N.E.2d 253 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 9, 2001

Because the facts of this case do not qualify for class B felony treatment, we find that the criminal confinement conviction should be imposed as a class D felony. … facts used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the essential elements of a second challenged offense.

Hopkins v. State

579 N.E.2d 1297 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 1, 1991

Any battle of qualified experts, as in the instant case, or other conflict as to the reliability of evidence is to be resolved by the trier of fact, see Orr v. … Clearly, the trial court was justified in finding the State's experts qualified.

Ab v. Sb

837 N.E.2d 965 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 23, 2005

As to non-statutory matters already governed by common law, modification is ap- propriate to reflect clearly established, widespread social changes, not to advance or favor one movement over another. … Robinson, 259 Ind. 16, 284 N.E.2d 794 (1972), abolished the doctrine of interspousal immunity, noting the absence of legislation. Id. at 22, 284 N.E.2d at 797.

Koscuisko County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.

248 Ind. 482 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1967

Code, under certain conditions, waived its immunity to suit. … The mortgagee did not choose to intervene, although it had ample notice of the litigation, as the record clearly shows.

Righter v. Keaton

170 Ind. 461 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 1908

to sign a rerhonstrance against the establishing of said proposed arm. … Such a proceeding would not only be in violation of the Constitution, but is clearly forbidden by the statute.

Kathy Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

981 N.E.2d 1202 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 12, 2012

The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinter- preted the law." State v. … "To prove bad faith, the plaintiff must establish, with clear and convincing evidence, that the insurer had knowledge that there was no legitimate basis for denying liability." Freidline v. Shelby Ins.

Brandon v. State

272 Ind. 92 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1979

Although it is true that there was a requirement established in Mata v. … It has already been clearly established in this state that a duplicate of a document is admissible in evidence “to the same extent as an original unless a genuine issue is raised as to the authenticity of the original, or

Cutter v. State

725 N.E.2d 401 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 17, 2000

Expert Testimony Cutter also claims that the pathologist was not qualified to testify regarding the dilated state of Berry=s vagina.[1] At trial, the State asked Dr. … , is clearly insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Wright v. State

266 Ind. 327 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1977

A physician qualified as an expert witness may properly answer hypothetical questions concerning cause of death based upon facts in evidence. Hicks v. … Properly qualified as an expert in pathology, the witness was correctly permitted to testify.

Pepper v. Martin

175 Ind. 580 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1910

to wit, in 1866, he had been, in a proper proceeding, adjudged to be a person of unsound mind and incapable of .managing his estate, and thereupon a guardian was appointed to take charge thereof; that said guardian duly qualified … Said instruction was clearly erroneous, so far as it required appellants, under the conditions stated, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator was of sound mind, and free from undue influence when the

State v. Pollard

908 N.E.2d 1145 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 30, 2009

Under this test the court must first determine whether the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings. Id. … We are persuaded the first Mendoza-Martines factor clearly favors treating the effects of the Act as punitive when applied to Pollard. 2.

In Re Lockyear

261 Ind. 448 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 8, 1974

Howard King, the then Judge of the 57th Judicial Circuit, was selected and qualified as Special Judge in the case. … If this fee was to be a fee in full for the services of the Respondent, the Disciplinary Commission no doubt could have established such an intent by the testimony of the successor Special Judge, but such testimony was not

Blake Layman & Levi Sparks v. State of Indiana

42 N.E.3d 972 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 2015

This felonious conduct was clearly ‘the mediate or immediate cause’ of [his accomplice’s] death.” Id. (emphasis added). … But we clarified, “the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish only one or even several, but not all, of the essential elements

Perkins v. Rogers

35 Ind. 124 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1871

The claimants here are not aliens, they are not technically enemies, they are only ‘ enemies in a qualified sense,’ as Justice Nelson has correctly said. … The foregoing authorities clearly establish the following propositions.

Sherwood v. State

702 N.E.2d 694 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 4, 1998

As the Court of Appeals established in Phares v. State, 506 N.E.2d 65 (Ind.Ct.App.1987), and this Court adopted in Smith v. … A single arrest does not establish a history of criminal conduct. Tunstill v. State, 568 N.E.2d 539, 545 (Ind.1991).

Dean v. State

433 N.E.2d 1172 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1982

Defense counsel then requested immunity for the witness, and the trial court’s denial thereof is assigned as error in Issue VI, below. … Even if we were to hold that the exclusion of such evidence was error, it was clearly harmless.

In re Haughee

795 N.E.2d 450 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 8, 2003

find that this alone does not clearly and convincingly establish a violation of Admis.Dise.R. 23(26)(b). … We find that the testimony and other evidence submitted clearly and convineingly establish that by entering into the agreement to represent the woman, the respondent "undertook a new legal matter" after he had received notice