Case law

State Ex Rel. Harris v. Superior Court

245 Ind. 339 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1964

. *350 It is further well and firmly established that the jurisdiction and power of courts of equity to issue restraining orders and injunctions is limited to the protection of civil and property rights. State ex rel. … An administrative agency of the state can grant special privileges and immunities under the police power of the state, whether for the protection of morals, health or safety, with absolute impunity from judicial review, only

Conrad v. Hansen

171 Ind. 43 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1908

whether there was a conspiracy on the part of the petitioners, or some of them, to make fifteen of their number freeholders by procuring the conveyance to them of a certain lot' in Lakeville, in said township, and thereby qualifying … The rule that this court cannot weigh the evidence is clearly applicable here. American Varnish Co. v. Reed (1900), 154 Ind. 88, 91 ; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. State, ex rel. (1902), 158 Ind. 189, 195 ; Lee v.

Cox v. State

475 N.E.2d 664 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1985

It is not to be used as a substitute for the duties clearly placed on an appellant by the other portions of Ind.R.App.P. 7.2. … It is incumbent on the appellant to clearly show the tendency of the photographs to improperly influence the jury. Akins v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 232 .

Maloney v. State

684 N.E.2d 488 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 18, 1997

This is sufficient to establish that Beldon was advised of his rights, and knowingly and voluntarily waived them. Id. at . 1245; see also Spencer v. … We conclude that the form signed by Maloney in this case clearly and personally advised him of his statutory and constitutional rights.

Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction

883 N.E.2d 802 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 9, 2008

A statute is nullified on constitutional grounds only where that result is “clearly rational and necessary.” Id. (quoting Bd. of Comm’rs v. Kokomo City Plan Comm’n, 263 Ind. 282, 286 , 330 N.E.2d 92, 95 (1975)). … For example, simple theft or conversion of an inmate’s property would be immunized from court redress.

Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman

796 N.E.2d 271 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 24, 2003

Here, the legislature clearly intended to change the common law and did so by explicitly removing the common law presumption that a dog is harmless unless it acts otherwise. … The rule does not use the terms "past" or "future" to qualify the types of "statements" to which it applies. But it is Hmited to "statements."

State ex rel. Cropper v. Murdock

86 Ind. 124 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1882

These rulings are assigned as error in this court. .To establish the wrongfulness and illegality of his imprisonment, appellant introduced in evidence a certified transcript of certain proceedings had in the Marion Criminal … If we must look to that act alone for authority, the appointment in this case was clearly irregular and illegal. Section 4 of the act of March 1st, 1855, 2 R.

Benson v. State

762 N.E.2d 748 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 15, 2002

At the time of the trial court's ruling, the defendant had not established a foundation showing that there had been no substantial changes in the trees, signage, or other possible obstructions to vision. … To qualify as fundamental error, "an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible." Willey v.

Bake v. Smiley

84 Ind. 212 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1882

and explicitly, and without any necessity for inference or surmise, what evidence was offered and excluded, and what facts it was intended to establish thereby. … So that, in any view of the case, we can not, under the long-established practice of this court, disturb the finding of the trial court on the weight of the evidence.

Culver-Union Township Ambulance Service v. Steindler

629 N.E.2d 1231 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1994

It is well-established that § 1983 creates no substantive rights; it merely provides the procedure for enforcing substantive federal rights. Chapman v. … As such, the Estate’s constitutional claim clearly rests on the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides: “[N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process

Turner v. State

258 Ind. 267 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 4, 1972

They are also instructed that the state must establish the guilt of a defendant *625 beyond a reasonable doubt. … In such a case the cautionary instruction to the jury is clearly called for and should have been given in my opinion.

Lindville v. State

3 Ind. 580 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 1, 1853

The structure of the statute before us clearly evinces that such has been its history. Taking it as we find it, we must reconcile and give effect to its several provisions, if they can be reconciled and made operative. … It is as though the lawgivers had said, we will reserve the qualified jurisdiction which we mean to confer on the- new Court over felony for a separate section.

Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc.

273 Ind. 374 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 16, 1980

The limitations of the Act apply when the health care provider voluntarily qualifies to come under the provisions of the Act. Ind.Code § 16-9.5-2-1. … The rules implicitly approve a specific demand, but do not require one, and the pleading requirement of this statute clearly satisfies the express pleading requirements of both rules.

Christopher Schmidt v. Indiana Insurance Company, C&F Insurance Group, LLC, and Bart Stith

45 N.E.3d 781 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 2, 2015

App. 2000) (issues clearly argued during sum- mary judgment are not waived even if not expressly raised as an affirmative defense in a party's answer) trans. denied. … Although the Agents did not establish their entitlement to summary judgment as to the elements of duty and breach, they did establish a prima facie case to negate the element of proximate cau- sation of damages from the alleged

Eskridge v. State

258 Ind. 363 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 21, 1972

First is that neither Officer Brenton nor Mukes, the testifying officers, were qualified to testify as experts regarding the nature and possible uses of the drug apparatus dropped by the appellant. … The answer is clearly no because such a waiver rule did not exist until it was created in this opinion.

Stultz v. State ex rel. Steele

65 Ind. 492 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1879

It will be observed, however, that it was not alleged in the information, that the appellants were not the lawfully elected and qualified mayor, eouncilmen, clerk, treasurer and marshal of a city, say of the City of Huntington … Rut we are clearly of the opinion, that the legality of the proceedings, whereby the territory in question was taken within, or annexed to, the City of Huntington, can not be tried and determined, under the provisions of

Blume v. State

154 Ind. 343 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 14, 1900

Counsel say that this person had not such opportunities for observing the appellant as were necessary to qualify him to give an opinion upon the subject of his mental condition. … The jury were repeatedly told in other general instructions given by the court that they could not convict the defendant unless his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Coates v. State

534 N.E.2d 1087 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1989

Witnesses in criminal actions can qualify for payment of certain expenses. See Ind.Code § 33-19-1-5 (1987). … The sentences imposed here do not qualify for revision by this Court. 15.

Evansville Courier & Press and Rita Ward v. Vanderburgh County Health Department

17 N.E.3d 922 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2014

Finally, upon request of a qualifying individual, the “local health officer shall provide a certification of birth, death, or stillbirth registration.” Ind. Code § 16-37-1-8(a) (2008). … requiring the retention of a permanent record of deaths by all health departments in Indiana, including the County Health Department pursuant to I.C. [§] 16-37-3-9, clearly

Clay v. State

440 N.E.2d 466 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 6, 1982

Concomitantly, he asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that he qualified for status and sentencing as an habitual offender. … established that the crime charged was theft of a motor vehicle.