Case law

D W v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 23, 2025

Thus, unlike in J.M., we cannot say that D.W. failed to establish a lack of advisement. … A power, privilege, or immunity secured to a person by law[.]”).

Catterlin v. City of Frankfort

87 Ind. 45 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1882

There is a permanent grade established in said city for the improvement of her public highways, and that it is n.ecessary that the aforesaid territory be annexed in order that a uniform grade may be established, and the territory … The evidence clearly tends to support the verdict of the-jury, and the verdict is not contrary to law. There was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Bemis v. Guirl Drainage Co.

182 Ind. 36 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1914

But the determination is subject to a review by the courts in cases clearly showing an appropriation for a private purpose in a particular instance. 1 Elliott, Roads and Sts. (3d ed.) §§212, 213, 224, 391; 2 Lewis, Eminent … Constitution, against granting special privileges and immunities.

Angleton v. State

686 N.E.2d 803 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1997

“The determination of whether a witness is qualified to give an opinion is within the trial court’s discretion.” Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 338 (Ind.1996). … We do not find the questions themselves placed defendant in grave peril because Leisure had already clearly testified to numerous facts which would allow the jury to infer Cheryl was scared and terrified and clearly stated

Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana

9 N.E.3d 663 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 3, 2014

In other words, to establish fundamental error, the defendant must show that, under the circumstances, the trial judge erred in not sua sponte raising the issue because alleged errors (a) "constitute clearly blatant violations … Such correct statement so distanced from an improper one cannot qualify its sub- stance, but it may counteract its harm.

Pendergrass v. State

913 N.E.2d 703 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 24, 2009

After concluding that the certificates were ―quite plainly affidavits,‖ the Supreme Court held that the affidavits clearly fell within ―testimonial‖ evidence because they ―are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony … Although the State Police laboratory is qualified to create a DNA profile, it apparently is not qualified to conduct a paternity analysis. Tr. at 127.

Jackson v. Hoover

26 Ind. 511 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1866

By a series of adjudications, certain rules have been established to aid in the proper construction of wills. These, as stated by Mr. … Beclfield states the rule on the subject of transposition thus: “ There is no more clearly established rule of construction, as applicable to wills, than that words, or clauses of sentences, or even whole paragraphs, may

Spaulding v. Mott

167 Ind. 58 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1906

The highway to be improved was thirty-three feet wide, and the order of the board following the viewers’ report established the width thereof at thirty-six feet. … This brings the case clearly within the rule. 16.

Hooks SuperX, Inc. v. McLaughlin

642 N.E.2d 514 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 9, 1994

Standard of Review This case was resolved by summary judgment for which our standard of review is well-established. … Clearly, society has an interest in preventing the overuse and misuse of prescription drugs. Recognizing that pharmacists have a duty in this regard helps further that goal.

Thompson v. State

674 N.E.2d 1307 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 26, 1996

This was clearly correct and the trial court properly sustained the objection. … The essential interests protected by the law of rape — the female's freedom of choice and immunity from unwanted intimacy' — are fully implicated even where complete penetration is not accomplished.

Brownsburg Area Patrons Affecting Change v. Baldwin

714 N.E.2d 135 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1999

This principle is well-established in both federal and state law. See Carolene Prods. Co. v. … We believe, however, the legislature did not intend for every potentially "influential” organization to qualify as a PAC, and thus be subjected to reporting and registration requirements.

William Bowman v. State of Indiana

51 N.E.3d 1174 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 26, 2016

inappropriate because (1) he did tender a jury instruction regarding the definition of a controlled buy, and (2) he moved to dismiss the charges after Phillips testified that the first buy had insufficient police safeguards to qualify … An abuse of discretion occurs only “if a ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Carpenter v.

Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Maher

176 Ind. 289 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 4, 1911

So if the evidence in this case should establish a liability on the part of the defendant, as to either of the particular charges of negligence,a recovery may be had upon the charge which is supported by the evidence.” … is that it informs the jury that if cars are run in unusual proximity, and a danger arises therefrom, it is the duty of the railroad company to warn passengers of the danger before an injury occurs; but this statement is qualified

Board of Commissioners v. Davis

22 L.R.A. 515 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1894

some preceding matter, it should be confined to what precedes it unless it clearly appears to have been intended to apply to some other matter. … An appeal from the order establishing, or refusing to establish, the incorporation, is not a suit by or against it. The reference is to subsequent suits to which it may be a party.

Fowler v. State

829 N.E.2d 459 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 16, 2005

This consti- tutional rule prohibits evidence even if it qualifies for a state law hearsay exception. In Hammon v. … The feigned or real absence of memory is itself a fac- tor for the trier of fact to establish, but does not render the witness unavailable.

Reighard v. State

457 N.E.2d 557 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1984

protections of both the rights of the accused and welfare of society, enabling finally to consider all relevant facts pertaining to the defendant's mental state at the time the act was committed and being thereby better qualified … Defendant further argues that his instruction clearly instructed the jury that it was to consider all relevant facts pertaining to his mental state at the time the offense was committed and that the court's instruction did

Miles v. Department of Treasury

209 Ind. 172 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 28, 1935

It was held that clearly such a charter did not authorize the laying of an income tax. … Hence, domicile in itself establishes a basis for taxation.

Aaron v. City of Tipton

218 Ind. 227 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1941

This is true, because a duty imposed by the legislature upon cities or towns, or a liability against them created by the legislature, may be qualified, limited or removed by that body. … The giving of the notice in our statute is not the establishment of particular conditions. It is merely a preliminary step in the bringing of the action. . . .

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Kemper

153 Ind. 618 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 23, 1899

There is evidence strongly tending to sustain the verdict and, under the well established rule in such cases, we cannot disturb the judgment. … Proof of immunity of other persons from injury would have afforded no sufficient basis for a presumption that the track was sound and safe. 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law p. 457, and cases cited.

Conner v. Citizens' Street Railroad

146 Ind. 430 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 17, 1896

It was there said: “It is contended that the word ‘accident’ qualifies the instruction and makes it correctly express the law. We do not think so. … Even if such habit could have any effect in modifying the clearly established rule of the company on that point, we think the proof of a single act of the company can hardly be said to tend to establish such habit.