Case law

State Ex Rel. Emmert v. Union Trust Co.

227 Ind. 571 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1949

the diaries to be edited by a qualified person and cause them then to be printed, published, dedicated to her father, Stoughton A. … To me it is evident *584 that by the use of these words testatrix clearly expressed her intention to do a public charity.

Pate v. Tait

72 Ind. 450 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1880

be difficult for any cause to procure the attendance. of such judge, to prevent delay, the court may appoint any competent attorney of this State, in good standing, to act as judge, who, if he consent to serve, shall be qualified … It is insisted by counsel for appellant that the plea of the statute of limitations is clearly established, and that there is no proof showing or affording ground for an inference of concealment by the defendant of the cause

Davis v. State

472 N.E.2d 922 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 18, 1985

Appellant now argues that the Exhibits were inadmissible because a sufficient chain of custody was not established. … It is well-established that the purpose of establishing a chain of custody for seized evidence is to show a complete chain of possession from the original receiver to the final custodian and thus to lay a proper foundation

Board of Comm'rs of Lagrange Co. v. Rogers

55 Ind. 297 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1876

personal property of the value of ten thousand dollars; that said will has been duly probated, and letters of administration issued to the defendants Nelson and Howard, who are named as executors in the will, and who have qualified … The opinions in both the above cases, delivered by IIowk, J., settle every point made in the present casé so clearly, that it would be pretentious in us to attempt to add to, in the hopes of strengthening, them.

Art Hill Ford, Inc. v. Callender

423 N.E.2d 601 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1981

This Court has clearly stated that while punitive damages are not generally recoverable in contract actions, there are certain exceptions to this rule. … Where the conduct of a party, in breaching his contract, independently establishes the elements of a common law tort, punitive damages may be awarded for the tort. F. D. Borkholder Co., Inc. v.

Paternity of K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H.

903 N.E.2d 453 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2009

A judgment is also clearly erroneous when the trial court applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. Id. Discussion L. … More specifically, even assuming J.I. qualifies as a de facto custodian 7 that status bears only on the question of custody.

Kent v. State

675 N.E.2d 332 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1996

This was clearly inappropriate. … The determination of whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion is within the trial court’s discretion. Hawkins v. State, 626 N.E.2d 436, 441 (Ind.1993).

Dier v. State

442 N.E.2d 1043 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1982

A sanction against the State was clearly not in order. ISSUE II State’s Exhibits Nos. 4, 9, and 33 are fingerprint evidence and tie Defendant to the scene of the crime. … Defendant also asserted that another State’s witness was more qualified, than was Sohl, to conduct the demonstration.

Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. State ex rel. Greenwood

159 Ind. 510 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 25, 1902

to which particular method of giving the notice prescribed by the statute, — whether by publication in a newspaper, or by posting notices in public places in the vicinity of the proposed highway, — was employed, is not clearly … The relator is shown to have been duly elected at the general election held in November, 1900, trustee of said Washington township, and duly qualified as such official, and was so acting at the time this action was instituted

Smith v. Mosier

5 Blackf. 51 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1838

This, was clearly erroneous ; but as it should and could have no bearing upon the merits of the cause, the error ought not to set aside the finding and judgment of the Court. … It is evident that the special act of congress, and the conditional and qualified patent to Smith, cannot affect any right which Mosier may have acquired by his patent.

State v. Brunner

947 N.E.2d 411 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 26, 2011

We 3 have previously assigned a test for new evidence brought under Post-Conviction Relief Rule 1(1)(a)(4): the petitioner must establish (1) that the evidence … Clearly the new evidence of Brunner’s recent sobriety, while laudable, will not produce a different result at trial.

Q.D.-A., Inc. v. Indiana Department of Workforce Development

114 N.E.3d 840 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 23, 2019

-A., negotiate his pay for each trip, and hire other drivers to complete his deliveries if they were qualified under federal regulations. Because Q.D. … -A. had established that Driver ran an independently established business, it had failed to prove the two other prongs. First, the LALJ reasoned, Q.D.

State Ex Rel. Woodford v. Marion Superior Court

655 N.E.2d 63 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1995

Woodford's petition *66 clearly comes within the scope of this rule. … This deprivation was consistent with the promise of remedy by due course of law, art. 1, § 12, Indiana Constitution, and the promise of equal privileges and immunities to all citizens, art. 1, § 23, because this Court granted

Todd v. Crail

167 Ind. 48 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1906

Ordered to meet at„the office of the county surveyor on June 26, 1903, and qualify and make view and make report.” … Turning then to the bill of exceptions, it very clearly appears that the petition presented to the board on June 1, 1903, in Roley Smith gravel road, No. 41, and the notice of such presentation, and the proof thereof, are

Elkhart County Department of Public Welfare v. Kehr

233 Ind. 142 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 1953

payment from the estate over all other claims, except prior recorded encumbrances, taxes, reasonable costs of administration; and funeral expenses in an amount not to exceed $125.00,” are clear, unambiguous, and definitely establishes … “In so far as the later law is merely a reenactment of an earlier one, it will not repeal an intermediate act which qualifies or limits the first one, but such intermediate act will be deemed to remain in force, and to qualify

Griffin v. State ex rel. Griffiths

119 Ind. 520 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 1889

We understand it to be firmly established that where a separation can not be made, and the invalid provision completely detached and treated as independent, the whole act must be pronounced void. … It is undoubtedly the law that when the several provisions of an act are independent, some may stand although others may fall, but this occurs only when the provisions are clearly independent. As said by Shaw, C.

Dequindre v. Williams

31 Ind. 444 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1869

In the first section of the act of 1825, already referred to, the same phrase is used in such a connection as clearly to import a meaning much broader than the literal signification of the words. … It is but adhering to one of the ancient and established landmarks of the law to be guided by it. It must be applicable to the present case.

Amoco Production Co. v. Laird

622 N.E.2d 912 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1993

Thus, Laird reasons, Amoco failed to establish that the information was not “readily ascertainable by other proper means,” a requisite statutory element for trade secret protection. … Thus, the overlay of an economically infeasible standard upon the UTSA’s readily ascertainable standard is clearly inconsistent with the definitional elements of “trade secret” contained in the model statute endorsed in to

Neidefer v. Chastain

71 Ind. 363 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1880

Birt, 4 Ind. 566 , this answer was clearly bad, if for no other reason than that it failed to show the article to be valueless. … Murray , if given effect, would break down the long and well established rule, that, if a party gets all he knowingly contracts for, he will not be allowed to plead that he got no consideration. Baker v.

Reed v. Watson

27 Ind. 443 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1867

• The facts relative to the execution of the will, upon which the finding of the lower court is evidently based, and which the evidence so clearly tends to establish as to require this court, in determining the legal question … The finding and judgment of the court, we think, are •clearly right, and should therefore be affirmed. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.