Case law

National Supply Co. v. Stranahan

161 Ind. 602 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 7, 1904

was by the lower court appointed the receiver of the two companies hereinbefore named, and duly qualified as such receiver. . … Especially is this true where, as in this case, it is clearly disclosed by the plain language of the act that it would be unreasonable to accord to it any other construction or interpretation than that given to it in the

Spranger v. State

650 N.E.2d 1117 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 24, 1995

Effective commencing January 1, 1992, Indiana Criminal Rule 24(B) requires the appointment of two qualified attorneys to represent an individual in a trial proceeding *1123 where a death sentence is sought. … We previously noted that the evidence before the post-conviction court does not clearly establish prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct.

Fryback v. State

272 Ind. 660 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1980

This witness was clearly qualified from a professional viewpoint; he stated among his several conclusory statements on at least one occasion after having been given the substance of the Hill test that in his opinion appellant … There is no hint of establishing any type of administrative remedy for policyholders. In fact they are not mentioned.

Burton v. Morrow

133 Ind. 221 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 20, 1892

He qualified and entered upon the discharge of his duties as such, and is still thus acting. … The facts found clearly show that the writing was executed, not as embodying the entire contract of the parties, but for the purpose of carrying into effect one of its incidental and collateral provisions.

In Re the Marriage of: Amy Steele-Giri v. Brian K. Steele

51 N.E.3d 119 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 15, 2016

Additionally, there is a well-established preference in Indiana “for granting latitude and deference to our trial judges in family law matters.” In re Marriage of Richardson, 622 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. 1993). … However, the GAL qualified her statement by stating she “would never suggest that a child be placed [in Mother’s home] because there is more money available.” (Id.)

Baer v. State

866 N.E.2d 752 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 22, 2007

Rather, here first the defense, and then in response the State, each tried to enhance the role and responsibility of the jury for a result that might be more vulnerable to or more immune from appellate modification. … Packer does not, however, purport to announce a list of foundational requirements for establishing consent under the IWA.

Haggerty v. Marion County Election Board

245 Ind. 565 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1964

Robert Fields posted bond, qualified and as *567 sumed the duties of sheriff accordingly. … Thereupon, on that day Robert Fields posted bond, qualified and assumed the duties of Sheriff.

In Re Jh

915 N.E.2d 986 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 25, 2009

A judgment is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence supporting the findings or the findings fail to support the judgment. Fraley v. … More specifically, even assuming J.I. qualifies as a de facto custodian7 that status bears only on the question of custody.

Jaggers v. State

687 N.E.2d 180 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 3, 1997

However, Leon cautioned that certain police conduct would not qualify for this exception, including where (1) the magistrate is “misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was … By focusing on the totality of the circumstances, it clearly tracks the then-recent decision in Gates . 3 .

Citizens National Bank of Evansville v. Foster

668 N.E.2d 1236 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 7, 1996

The drafters of this provision clearly contemplated some cap. … Tennessee Valley Authority, "[Clonsiderations of propriety, as well as long-established practice, demand that we refrain from passing upon the constitutionality of an act of Congress unless obliged to do so in the proper

Norton v. State

273 Ind. 635 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1980

Appellant now asserts that Heck was not qualified to express an opinion on this question. … Clearly, there has been no showing that the jury’s behavior here constituted gross misconduct.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.R., J.T.R., J.L.R., & E.R. (Minor Children) A.B. (Mother) and J.R. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 15, 2020

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Beasley v. … Further, we note that “[DCS] need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and once [DCS] strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence, any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not to admissibility.”

Ford v. State

112 Ind. 373 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1887

Indulging that presumption, and acting upon that rule, it must be held that it sufficientfy appears from the record here that the indictment was found and returned by a legal and duly qualified grand jury. … It was clearly erroneous. James Ford, an uncle of appellant, and father of James T. Ford, jointly indicted with appellant, was a witness for appellant.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of K.R., J.T.R., J.L.R., and E.R. (Minor Children) A.B. (Mother) and J.R. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 15, 2020

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party’s substantial rights.” Beasley v. … Further, we note that “[DCS] need not establish a perfect chain of custody, and once [DCS] strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence, any gaps go to the weight of the evidence and not to admissibility.”

Armour v. State

479 N.E.2d 1294 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 3, 1985

Our standard for reviewing sufficiency claims has been firmly established. On review, we do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility. … Thé substance of defense tendered instruction number one was clearly covered by preliminary instructions number one and eleven.

Haskett v. State

255 Ind. 206 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 10, 1970

Clearly the United States Supreme Court has not purported to so hold. In Re Gault, supra ; Re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 . I believe and I feel have demonstrated ( Bible v. … Statutes granting immunity where testimony is compelled, as before a grand jury, etc., have consistently been upheld and should be in this case.

Stewart v. State

721 N.E.2d 876 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 30, 1999

The record also contained a second BMV letter to Stewart dated November 30, 1995, which stated in its entirety: Previously the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles sent you a notice stating that you qualified for habitual traffic … Bell, 182 Ga.App. 860 , 357 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1987)). 3 The record in this case clearly shows that in 1993 the Bureau mailed Stewart a notice of his HTV adjudication, at the address last known to the Bureau.

Martin v. State

251 Ind. 587 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 31, 1969

Appellant's second contention is that the trial judge was guilty of a manifest abuse of discretion in qualifying Wilma Jean Haley, age five, as a competent witness to testify in this case. … At no time during the testimony of this five-year-old was it established that she understood the consequences of not telling the truth while under oath.

Miller, Etc. v. Ortman, Etc.

235 Ind. 641 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 12, 1956

Immediately following the adoption of these by-laws the stockholders shall choose five persons to serve as Directors until the next annual meeting of the stockholders, and until their successors are duly elected and qualified … Clearly the law is not as represented by appellee Thorpe, as stated in Finding 16.

Hawkins v. City of Greenfield

248 Ind. 593 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1967

Perhaps we should preface our remarks by stating that we think it to be incumbent upon us to follow logical and substantial precedents and trends already established in our State. … The presumption being in, favor of the legislative declaration, yet not conclusive, the courts will treat the decision of the Legislature with consideration, and will not interfere therewith unless the use is clearly and