Case law

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

172 Ind. 513 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1909

section with respect to the position the precipe shall occupy is directed to the clerk, and does not go to any substantive right of the parties, and when copied into the transcript, and referred to in the certificate, it clearly … The certificate is complete without it; but it is insisted that it so qualifies the former language as to exclude all papers and entries not filed in his office, and therefore excludes all papers except the complaint, because

Dudley v. State

480 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1985

It is well established that the purpose of establishing a chain of custody for seized evidence is to show a complete chain of possession from the original receiver to the final custodian, thus connecting the evidence in question … The trial court ordered a 1976 felony conviction be stricken since the exact date of the conviction was not established.

State ex rel. Holt v. Denny

118 Ind. 449 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 24, 1889

This is clearly in violation of the Constitution. … It is clearly class legislation, and granting to certain citizens privileges not equally belonging to all.

Pollard v. State

252 Ind. 513 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1969

Judge Miller qualified as special judge on February 3,1967. … After establishing that the right to a change of venue is statutory and consequently must be governed by the provisions and prohibitions of the statute, the court asserts the proposition that where the statute limits the

Shuamber v. Henderson

579 N.E.2d 452 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1991

Unquestionably, Indiana has a longstanding and well-established rule that damages for mental distress or emotional trauma may be recovered only when the distress is accompanied by and results from a physical injury caused … Clearly, this statute does not attempt to fully compensate the Shuambers for their injuries allegedly sustained from this automobile collision.

Harrison v. State

269 Ind. 677 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1978

Appellant presents two claims in this regard: (1) that the state failed to present evidence, independent of appellant's confession, to establish corpus delicti, and; (2) that the uncontradicted evidence established that appellant … State, supra , it is clear that a confession is inadmissible if it was obtained by a promise of immunity or mitigation of punishment.

Sherelis v. State

498 N.E.2d 973 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1986

Therefore, the listing of cocaine in Schedule II clearly includes cocaine hydrochloride. … In the present case, the state presented two expert witnesses and the defendant himself was qualified as an expert.

Ratliff v. Cohn

693 N.E.2d 530 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 27, 1998

Clearly, there was strong support at the convention for significant change from the then-existing state of affairs regarding juvenile incarceration. … Under these eases, Ratliff has not established an Article 1, Section 16 violation. 21 Thus, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Willey v. State

712 N.E.2d 434 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1999

The above-named individual has requested that he be given a polygraph examination by a qualified Boone County Law Enforcement Officer. 2. … The trial court’s comments at sentencing clearly indicate that Counts I, III, and V merged into Counts II and IV and that it sentenced the defendant on the latter two counts.

Allen v. State

686 N.E.2d 760 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 25, 1997

State, 644 N.E.2d 565 (Ind.1994), and the precedents established in Bellmore and Bivins . … To be "fundamental eiror” it must constitute a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively.

State v. McManus

868 N.E.2d 778 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2007

The trial court’s finding is subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 104 (Ind. 2005). … Both scores are in the range of intellectual functioning qualifying for mental retardation.

Board of Commissioners v. Shields

130 Ind. 6 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1891

This is clearly shown by Zollars, J., speaking for the court in the case of Reubelt v. … with a firm of attorneys to act as county attorneys for a period of three years from a certain date in the future — the date fixed being the day when one of its members would retire from the board and his successor would qualify

Bacher v. State

722 N.E.2d 799 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 6, 2000

The impact on others may qualify as an aggravator in certain cases but “the defendant’s actions must have had an impact on ... … 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

Blough v. Parry

144 Ind. 463 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 3, 1896

the jury that if at the time the testator executed the will “he was of unsound mind, then it will be your duty in like manner *487 to find for the plaintiffs,” does not require them to so find, even though the evidence clearly … That holding is that such adjudication conclusively establishes his inability to manage his estate, but does not necessarily establish testamentary incapacity, yet" that it was prima facie evidence of such incapacity and

State v. Swift

69 Ind. 505 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1880

The county answered, that, although more than two-thirds voted at the election, two-thirds of the qualified voters of the township did not vote, in favor of issuing the bonds. … Any other rule would be productive of the greatest inconvenience, and ought not to be adopted, unless the legislative will to that effect is clearly expressed.” County of Cass v. Johnston, 5 Otto, 360 ; St.

STATE EX REL. INDIANAPOLIS WATER v. Boone Cir. Ct.

307 N.E.2d 870 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 6, 1974

As an administrative agency, it is presumed to be qualified by knowledge and experience to perform this function. … However, in light of the majority opinion reaching the merits of petitioners' case, I also dissent, because the petitioners have failed to sustain their burden before this Court to establish clearly that the trial court has

Sherlock v. Bainbridge

41 Ind. 35 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1872

Where a stream, which is clearly not navigable, forms the boundaries of proprietors on each side of it, under the common law, each may claim to the middle of the stream. … The appellee’s wharf or wharf-boat is clearly entitled to no greater immunity, as against a person navigating the river, than if it had been a floating craft navigating the river, in which event, in case of collision, wilfulness

State v. Shumaker

200 Ind. 716 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 28, 1928

of the Legislative, to Congress; Article 2 of the Executive, to the President; and Article 3, of the Judiciary, to the United States Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish … And yet it was deemed advisable to expressly except it from the operation of the constitutional provision in question, which clearly indicates that it was never thought or intended that the term ‘offenses’ should be so limited

Department of Insurance v. Marion Superior Court

236 Ind. 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1956

A number of such applicants had taken and passed the written examination prescribed by law and had been notified by the proper authorities that they had successful^ qualified for licenses to write automobile insurance. … The rights which the Company is here endeavoring to protect are, under the circumstances in this case, clearly the basis for equitable relief and the Marion Circuit Court had jurisdiction of this particular case, and it did

Ashabraner v. Bowers

753 N.E.2d 662 · Indiana Supreme Court · Aug 30, 2001

Ashabraner appealed, claiming that Bowers used a racially-based peremptory challenge, an expert witness was not qualified, and the trial court erred in regard to two instructions. … Because Batson applies to civil cases, the trial court was clearly wrong to conclude that "peremptory challenges can be utilized for any reason." (R. at 182.)