Case law

Hernandez v. State

716 N.E.2d 948 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1999

status were not properly admitted, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to establish his habitual offender status. … A reading of the exhibits reveals that each is a complete document clearly referring to the same 1989 murder charge: Cause Number 18D01-8811-CF-46 appears on both documents.

Parks v. State

59 L.R.A. 190 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 1902

The privileges and immunities clause of this amendment has no application to the denial that is complained of here. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 , 21 L. Ed. 394 ; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377 , 14 Sup. … The amendment of 1899 provides that the law shall not apply “to ány physician or surgeon who is legally qualified to practice in the state or territory in which he resides, when in actual consultation with a legal practitioner

Pickens v. State

767 N.E.2d 530 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 10, 2002

One or more arrests, standing alone, do not establish the "history of criminal or delinquent activity" aggravator to enhance a sentence. See Ind.Code § 35-38-1-7.1(b)(2); Sherwood v. … The trial court's conclusion that the defendant abused the victim prior to the crime is not clearly erroneous. We find no error.

Bryan v. Mayo

188 Ind. 548 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 19, 1919

There was nothing stated in the conversation on which appellee relies as establishing the contract which would indicate that appellee was to act for appellant in any other capacity than that of an agent to sell real estate … The contract disclosed by the evidence is clearly within the provisions of the statute.

Figert v. State

686 N.E.2d 827 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1997

Probable cause clearly existed with respect to the first two homes, and the totality of the circumstances established some suspicion or possibility of a joint drug-dealing enterprise at the Farm. But this is not enough. … In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home_” Payton v.

Robinson v. Moser

203 Ind. 66 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 31, 1931

The fact that the people usually do have this right arises incidentally from the provisions of the Constitution, but as shown by the authorities hereinbefore cited the right is clearly subject to the qualification made by … The court here fails to recognize and give effect to the well-established rule that fixing the time for the commencement of a term of office at a date subsequent, to the expiration of an incumbent’s term causes a vacancy

Romine v. State

431 N.E.2d 780 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 2, 1982

Clearly the court erred in its interpretation of the statutory sentencing provision; just as clearly the court strictly complied with subsection “d” of Ind.Code § 35—4.1-1-3, supra, for the court twice stressed to defendant … Jenkins, (1978) 268 Ind. 478 , 377 N.E.2d 868 , he asserts inmates serving determinate terms such as his ten-year sentence did not qualify for parole.

Humphreys v. State

984 N.E.2d 1231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 28, 2013

Analysis If our habitual-offender statute is generally a “three strikes” law, then subsection 8(b)(3) establishes that a defendant cannot strike out on a foul tip. … Our decision in Owens’s companion ease noted that while the statutory language is less than clear, its “thrust is unmistakable: while a single felony drug conviction is not enough to qualify a person for habitual offender

Rector v. State

256 Ind. 634 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1971

With his competency established by legislative enactment, however, (Acts of 1873, ch. 107, § 1, re-enacted by Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 235, 1956 Repl. Burns Ind. … It follows logically that he, in his capacity as a witness should be accorded the same immunities as other witnesses, included among them that his character may be proven only by general *649 reputation, and not by specific

Huffman v. State

543 N.E.2d 360 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 7, 1989

On July 10, 1985, the State filed a petition requesting use immunity for Onie Huffman, appellant's mother. The petition also requested the court to compel her to testify. … In the case at bar, the trial court clearly articulated the brutality of the killing and appellant's participation therein.

Carter v. State

766 N.E.2d 377 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 22, 2002

The trial court clearly did not err in finding the bite mark evidence admissible. … Testimony by Experts: (a) If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as

State Ex Rel. Reichert v. Youngblood

225 Ind. 129 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 28, 1947

The respondent has filed his verified response and return to the temporary writ issued by this court April 30th, in which respondent alleged he is the duly elected, qualified and acting judge of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court … If any responsible person had attempted to inform the court in open court that some of the members of the grand jury were selling immunity or selling their votes to indict, could there be any question of the inherent right

Mueller Brass Co. v. Gross Income Tax Division

255 Ind. 514 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1971

The plaintiff cannot through its many local activities gain the advantage of a local business and also hold interstate immunities. … Viewed from this perspective we regard it as apparent that, as to southern zone sales, any interstate activity was indeed only incidental to Mueller’s intrastate activity. *537 Clearly a “nexus” with the state has been established

Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Lamb

256 Ind. 65 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 3, 1971

finds such finding, decision or determination of such agency is: "(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or "(2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … The following statement in the Commission's brief clearly establishes this.

Standeford v. Devol

21 Ind. 404 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1863

“Marriage is only a qualified gift to the husband of bis wife’s choses in action, viz: that be reduce them into possession during its continuance,” &c. 1 Bright’s Hus. and "Wife 36; I Kent Com. 122. Says Mr. … This is a very well considered case, in which the law is clearly stated, and is strictly in point with the one before us.

Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Reynolds

849 N.E.2d 516 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2006

The trial court found that “there has been no evidence designated establishing that Dutchmen had actual knowledge of the alleged welding defects in the scaffolding.” … The implications of such a disclaimer as to third party tort claims are not clearly spelled out and as elaborated below, are not made clear by settled judicial precedent.

Matter of Lawrance

579 N.E.2d 32 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1991

West Supp.1990) establishes a local child protection service by county. … At least with respect to the fourth condition, this finding was clearly erroneous.

Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co.

217 Ind. 93 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1940

In some of these cases there is qualifying language to the effect that the Legislature may not forbid appeals in all cases so as to render this court impotent. … Where the line is to be drawn between those that may be appealed here as of right and those where appeals may be forbidden by statute has never been clearly suggested.

Indiana Department of Child Services v. A.B.

949 N.E.2d 1204 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 29, 2011

It is acceptable that the legislature has established a process for the state to pay for placement and a process for the county to be ultimately responsible. … But we cannot agree that the new provision is immune from any judicial review whatsoever. It is well established that Article 7 section 4 of the Indiana Constitution confers plenary appellate jurisdiction on this Court.

Samper v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

231 Ind. 26 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1952

The retail price for the parts was clearly stated on the receipt and guarantee given the customer. … We are not at liberty to say the appellant could not make his contracts in this manner to qualify as “selling at retail.”