Case law

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.

Henderson v. State

769 N.E.2d 172 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 6, 2002

State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 60 (Ind. 1995)(same injury used to establish class A felony robbery and murder). The defendant's claim qualifies for consideration under this doctrine. … While a failure to find mitigating circumstances clearly supported by the record may imply that the sentencing court improperly overlooked them, the court is obligated neither to credit mitigating circumstances in the same

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

BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION, ETC. v. Turner

241 Ind. 73 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1960

If appellant had cause previously to invoke Rule 1-13, it is our opinion that appellant waived its right to claim the benefit of such rule, as the record shows clearly appellant voluntarily filed his suggested findings and … December 1, 1954; and (b) did appellee continue to practice in Indiana during that period; and (c) the question raised by appellee as to whether said statute requires practice in Indiana or does practice any other place qualify

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.

Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Miller

165 Ind. 381 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 23, 1905

It seems to us that, in view of these considerations, the answers to said interrogatories established the duty of appellant to maintain said crossing. … Then, if the special findings are clearly inconsistent with the general verdict, it is the duty of that court to be governed by the special findings, and render the judgment in accordance with them, disregarding the general

Dickerson v. Turner

12 Ind. 223 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 27, 1859

And, again, says the same author, p. 654, “Where it does not appear that the drawer or indorser has been discharged by the laches of the holder, a qualified promise, taken in connection with the facts and circumstances, has … In a note to the section cited, the author says, that the propriety, and the extent of the application of the rule, have been much discussed, and sometimes questioned, but it seems now to be clearly established.

White v. Fleming

114 Ind. 560 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1888

That the defendant Nicholas Cornet is the duly elected and qualified auditor of said county and State, and is acting as such. … The complaint in this case, and each paragraph thereof, were clearly insufficient, we think, whether challenged by demurrer below, or by an assignment of error for the first time in this court.

Indiana State Ethics Commission, Office of Inspector General, and David Thomas, in his Official Capacity as Inspector General v. Patricia Sanchez

18 N.E.3d 988 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 2014

We will affirm the Commission unless its conclusions are clearly erroneous. Id. The Trial Court Should Have Affirmed the Commission’s Decision. … Thus, finding no precedential support for her arguments, we decline Sanchez’s invitation to depart from our well-settled allocation of the burden of proof. 5 established

Hughett v. State

557 N.E.2d 1015 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1990

A sufficient chain of custody was established for State’s Exhibits Nos. 9, 10, 10A, 11 and 12. There was no error in their admission. … Whether a witness is qualified to present expert testimony is within the trial court’s discretion. Swoaks v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 149 .

Nipsco Indus. Grp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co.

100 N.E.3d 234 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 20, 2018

And it generally endorsed NIPSCO's proposal to establish objective ascertainable criteria for selecting specific projects within "project group" categories. … Merely because the Industrial Group could have challenged the TDSIC-3 order, but did not, does not mean the legal methodology that order embraced is immune from legal challenge thereafter.

Sherwood v. State

241 Ind. 215 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1960

The appellants claim error because upon the disqualification of special judge Walter Pritchard he submitted a panel of qualified attorneys from which a special judge was to be chosen, instead of remanding the case to the … NOTES [1] "Since the fact that testimony is given pursuant to a promise of immunity or leniency may have a bearing upon the weight to be given it, there is no question as to the right of the defendant to have the fact that

John E. Moriarity and Mae E. Moriarity v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 3, 2019

To the contrary, we have a well-established rule to deal with these situations: “[u]ndefined words . . . are given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning.” … It clearly knows how to define words for the Act, see 312 Ind. Admin. Code 1-1- 21(a) (2018), http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03120/A00010.PDF?

Kleihege v. State

206 Ind. 206 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1934

No. 5, so far as it is material to the question here involved, reads as follows: “In order to establish the existence of a conspiracy it is necessary for the state to prove a combination of two or more persons by concert … The foregoing brief reference to the testimony of the only witness directly connecting appellant with the crime charged does not warrant this court in saying that appellant was clearly, and conclusively guilty of the charge

Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Turner

241 Ind. 73 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1960

If appellant had cause previously to invoke Rule 1-13, it is our opinion that appellant waived its right to claim the benefit of such rule, as the record shows clearly appellant voluntarily, filed his suggested findings and … December 1, 1954; and (b) did appellee continue to practice in Indiana during that period; and (c) the question raised by appellee as to whether said statute requires practice in Indiana or does practice any other place qualify

Petty v. State

532 N.E.2d 610 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 11, 1989

The evidence presented must establish all the elements *612 of the lesser included offenses and reveal a serious dispute on the element(s) which distinguish the charged offense from the lesser included offense. … The trial court's expression of non-enforcement of the costs sufficiently qualifies as an express statement that the defendant shall not be imprisoned for failing to pay the fine.

Storen, State Treas. v. Sexton, Marion Co. Treas.

209 Ind. 589 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 5, 1936

In the light of its historical background, its purpose is clearly apparent. It is a mutual insurance project, designed to provide immediate funds in lieu of frozen deposits. … It is contended that the act is in conflict with article 1, section 23, of the Constitution of Indiana, which provides that: “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities

State Ex Rel. 1625 East Washington Realty Co. v. Markey

212 Ind. 59 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1937

Clearly there is an omission of the word “civil” in connection with the word “criminal.” … Brodigan (1914), 37 Nev. 245 , 141 Pac. 988 : “Where, from a reading of the entire act, certain words necessary to give it complete sense have manifestly been omitted, courts, under well-established rules of construction,

Davis v. State

196 Ind. 213 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 19, 1925

The ownership may be laid in one who has a qualified, special or constructive ownership only. 20 C. J. 466. … The ownership may be laid in one who has an *225 absolute, a qualified, a special or a constructive ownership. In Edson v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 283 , 47 N.

Dahlberg v. Ogle

268 Ind. 30 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 9, 1978

The relationship of doctor and patient existed here, and clearly Ogle owed a legal duty towards Mr. Dahlberg to use reasonable medical skill and care in treating him. … These facts regarding the witness’ education, training and experience form an adequate basis for the exercise of judgment by the trial court finding the witness qualified to state his opinion regarding the decision of Deogracias