Case law

Sexton v. State

262 Ind. 554 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1974

The admission of improper evidence which tends only to disclose a fact which is clearly proved by other legitimate and uncontroverted evidence is harmless error. Crim, a/k/a Miller v. … Over the defendant’s objection that the witness was not qualified “* * * to interpret terms in the legal sense * * a State’s witness was permitted to answer the question “* * * Is a neurosis a legal disease?”

Washington v. State

390 N.E.2d 983 · 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 instrucsion from his mental disorders is sufficient to subsequently given, there is no abuse of discretion in giving … 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

Matter of Antcliff

629 N.E.2d 848 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1994

The court approved the petition, and Respondent qualified as executor. … Respondent’s guardianship report was never approved by the court. *851 The above facts clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to provide competent representation, in contravention of Ind.Professional Conduct

Kroslack v. Estate of Kroslack

504 N.E.2d 1024 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 13, 1987

Therefore, upon receiving a timely demand from a qualified claimant, the personal representative, on behalf of the estate, proceeds against the multi-party account representative. … This filing was outside the one year period of limitation established by Ind. Code § 32-4-1.5 -7. 4 .

Sense v. Roach

222 Ind. 323 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1944

Roach died intestate a resident of Marion County, Indiana, on May 4, 1940, and on May 9th the appellee Edward Roach was appointed administrator of the estate of said decedent by the Probate Court of said county and qualified … This was clearly an illegality. And in Kingan & Co. v. Hawley (1902), 29 Ind. App. 376, 377 , 64 N.

State ex rel. Curran v. Mallory

65 Ind. 43 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1878

We find it necessary to a pi’oper understanding of this case, and of our decision thereof, that we should give a summary at least of the facts established in the evidence: Cn the 3d day of 'September, 1874, the appellee John … Mallory was duly qualified as a justice of the peace of Jackson Township, and thereafter entered upon the discharge of the duties of his office. The other appellees were his sureties, on his official bond.

Jason Young v. Hood's Gardens, Inc.

Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 22, 2015

The trial court also struck a por- tion of the plaintiff's affidavit containing his opinion that the value of the wood exceeded $400 on grounds that the plaintiff did not qualify as an expert and there was nothing about the … The first step in statutory interpretation is to determine whether the legislature has spoken clearly and unambiguously on the point in question. Sees v. Bank One, Indiana, N.A., 839 N.E.2d 154, 157 (Ind. 2005).

Dobbs v. State

237 Ind. 119 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1957

Nor is this a case where the reputation sought to be proved was clearly established by other evidence, or was undisputed and unchallenged. … Appeals here should not be determined by this court speculating on what the jury may have considered clearly established by disputed evidence.

Powell v. State

769 N.E.2d 1128 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2002

“An allegation that the trial court failed to identify or find a mitigating circumstance requires the defendant to establish that the mitigating evidence is both significant and clearly supported by the … By being qualified to serve as a police officer and having served for a number of years, Powell apparently was able to overcome whatever adversity he might have experienced in his youth.

Weaver v. State

583 N.E.2d 136 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1991

The evidence of this crime does not qualify for admission under Valle. While admitting this evidence was error, it was plainly harmless. … At trial, the State clearly established that the body was found in Boone County, thus establishing venue in Boone County by virtue of the portion of the statute providing for venue in the county where the body is found.

An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana

975 N.E.2d 1273 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 13, 2012

Nonetheless “[t]he plain, ordinary, and usual meaning of [I.C. § 35-41-1-1] clearly establishes ‘in Indiana’ as a prerequisite for Indiana criminal prosecutions and thus restricts the power to exercise criminal jurisdiction … First, we are examining a statute which clearly prohibits a very wide range of activity. See Nash v. State, 433 N.E.2d 807, 813 (Ind. Ct.

McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc.

517 N.E.2d 390 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1988

In addition, Remington and Barbour at the time were presumably concerned only with establishing that McClanahan was not entitled to unemployment benefits. … Whether other administrative proceedings might qualify under Cox is a matter for another day. The trial court's denial of summary judgment to McClanahan is affirmed.

Hoffman v. Romack

212 Ind. 421 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1937

He qualified and assumed the duties of his trust. … The finding of the court clearly established that the Sharpsville Bank was a private bank; that the owners (stockholders) operated the same until April 15, 1933, when they placed it in voluntary liquidation, as provided by

Mary Elizabeth Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, Individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel

993 N.E.2d 167 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 28, 2013

The evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish the foreseeability of a criminal assault on a guest in his motel room. That evidence included, but was not limited to, the following: . . . … Rev. 355 (2003); William Westerbeke, The Application of Comparative Responsibility to Intentional Tortfeasors and Immune Parties, 10 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 189 (2000); J. Tayler Fox, Can Apples Be Compared to Oranges?

State v. Gerhardt

33 L.R.A. 313 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1896

This provision, I think, clearly attempts to invest these inferior officials with an arbitrary, undefined, and unlimited power to determine who, and who may not, be entitled to the privilege of conducting some other lawful … The 23d section of the Bill of Bights provides, that ‘The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens

Johnson v. State

442 N.E.2d 1065 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1982

The hung jury obviously changed the prosecutor's circumstance and clearly bore no relationship to Appellant's trial. … discretion rests with our trial courts to excuse qualified jurors.

Cody v. State

259 Ind. 570 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1972

The trial court clearly did not err in permitting the question of first degree murder to go to the jury. … Solymos apparently attempting to establish incompetency on their part by asking a series of questions as to how they made their evaluation of the appellant.

Robert Lewis III v. State of Indiana

34 N.E.3d 240 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2015

Wilkes, as I said, clearly makes it clear that the Court consider these things. … You clearly have the same option as the jury. THE COURT: Okay. Mr.

Williams v. State

271 Ind. 476 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1979

One of the necessary steps in qualifying a photograph for introduction is to establish that it is a true and accurate representation of the person, place or thing which it purports to portray. New v. … The prejudicial and inflammatory impact upon the jury from this photograph clearly and decisively outweighed its relevance as a picture of a man who according to the testimony up to that time had entered a bar to have a drink

Watkins v. State ex rel. Van Auken

151 Ind. 123 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 1898

counties, as caused the' location and construction of the drain so sought; that during the summer of the year 1895 said drain, so constructed, became obstructed and in need of repairs, *125 when the relator, then being the qualified … Transposing such of these provisions as relate directly to the question in hand, it is clearly provided that under whatever law a drain is constructed, it is the duty of the surveyor of the county in which the proceedings