Case law

Barnes v. State

634 N.E.2d 46 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 6, 1994

Appellant claims that his statement and testimony concerning other instances of the use of a gun would not qualify. … He claims that failure to find mitigating cireum-stances when they are clearly supported by the record may imply they were overlooked and not properly considered. Scheckel v. State (1993), Ind., 620 N.E.2d 681 .

Specialty Furniture Co. v. Rusche

212 Ind. 184 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1937

The receiver duly qualified. … These facts brought the cause clearly within the fifth clause of the statute.

Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc.

269 Ind. 361 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1978

This statute reads as follows: “(a) The department, shall upon proper application and the payment of the required fee, issue to every applicant qualifying therefore a permit or license as applied for. *363 (b) Every such … Clearly, the photograph requirement has placed the appellees in a dilemma requiring to choose between violating an important religious principle or surrendering their driving privileges.

Berry v. Crawford

990 N.E.2d 410 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 18, 2013

determine the rules of its own proceedings, whether a “majority of each house” has voted in favor of a bill must be decided by the rules established by the legislature. … The court made clear that this constitutional provision would not work to immunize members from any scrutiny whatsoever by the judicial or executive branches of government, but where the conduct at issue constitutes a “core

Hicks v. State

544 N.E.2d 500 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1989

The determination of whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert *505 is within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. … Fair's expertise in her field was adequately established at trial. The extent of her knowledge affects the weight of her testimony and not its admissibility.

State Ex Rel. Cittadine v. Indiana Department of Transportation

790 N.E.2d 978 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 24, 2003

This language clearly does not abrogate but rather acknowledges the public standing doctrine. … We conclude that Cittadine's claim, which involves the enforcement of a public right, qualifies for the public standing doctrine.

Boyd v. State

494 N.E.2d 284 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1986

More importantly, however, the evidence established Defendant's guilt to a substantial and overwhelming degree. … An examination of the trial court's order shows clearly that the trial court did not denominate these matters as aggravating circumstances.

State v. Lincoln Memory Gardens, Inc.

242 Ind. 206 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1961

The evidence further shows that the area was platted by experienced and qualified cemetery architects; that 370 families have purchased 1,162 interment lots in the “Garden of the Last Supper,” and 15,200 burial spaces have … That is not the situation in the present case as clearly appears from the statement of facts hereinabove set out and which we deem unnecessary to repeat here.

Board of Election Commissioners v. Knight

187 Ind. 108 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 26, 1917

better that the qualifications of electors at town and city elections be fixed, and not readily changed, they would not have left the matter to a mere inference from the word “ward,” but would have used language fully and clearly … “If we find a principle established by long-continued practice, we must yield to it, unless we are satisfied that it is repugnant to the plain words of the Constitution.” Hovey, Governor, v.

Phenix Insurance v. Tomlinson

9 L.R.A. 317 · Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 1890

The averment of performance is, however, qualified by specific allegations, which read thus : “ And the plaintiff admits it to be true that when said premium note became due he did not pay the same. … It is a principle of wide sweep that forfeitures are not favored, and within the spirit of this principle such cases as this clearly fall.

Conter, Treasurer v. State Ex Rel. Berezner

211 Ind. 659 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1937

Conter was the duly elected, qualified and acting treasurer of Lake County, Indiana, and_ was ex-officio treasurer of the City of Gary, Indiana, at the time the action herein was commenced. … Appellant submits that in the light of the case cited above, Section 2, Chapter 317, Acts of 1935 is clearly unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Stinson v. State

262 Ind. 189 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1974

Again this witness was skillfully cross-examined and his lack of certainty clearly demonstrated to the jury. … It was further established that Tyler would hot be called as a witness for the State in appellant’s trial, and it was conceded by the State that Tyler had made statements on the tapes to the effect that Oxford was on the

Peter & Burghard Stone Co. v. Marion National Bank

198 Ind. 581 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1926

Klausmann died, and after having been appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate, his widow was substituted in his place, and is one of the appellants herein. … This contract shall not be binding upon the subcontractor until it is clearly established by the owner and the contractor that in the event of failure on the part of the contractor to make payments, when due, the right of

Baer v. State

942 N.E.2d 80 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 26, 2011

The PCR court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that Baer has not met the burden required for relief on new evidence. … McManus, this Court restated what qualifies as ―significantly subaverage intellectual functioning‖ under Ind.

In Re Marriage of Huss

888 N.E.2d 1238 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 26, 2008

A challenger must show that the trial court's findings are clearly erroneous. Id. … A reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the judgment was established by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 288.

TINDER, PROS. ATTY. v. Music Op. Inc.

237 Ind. 33 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 2, 1957

1, §23), is primarily for the legislature and does not become a judicial question unless it clearly appears that the legislative classification is not based on substantial distinctions with reference to the subject-matter … “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.” Art 1, §23. .

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Locke

112 Ind. 404 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 30, 1887

exercise of due diligence and skill, might have been foreseen and prevented, and the person upon whom the injury *410 has fallen may have been one for whose safety and protection the defendant was at the time under some qualified … In some manner, not clearly explained, a child, in leaving the ferry-boat in company with its mother, fell through or over the guard and was drowned.

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

178 Ind. 691 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 19, 1912

Acts indicate the intention, and upon the intention clearly expressed by open acts and visible conduct *697 the public and individual citizens may act. … In arriving at such difference it certainly was competent to permit witnesses, who were qualified as to knowledge of such values, to give the same about the time in question, that is, the value before the obstruction was

Halbert v. State ex rel. Board of Commissioners

22 Ind. 125 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1864

the day and year last aforesaid, was approved by the Board of Commissioners aforesaid, and said Halbert then and there entered upon the duties of said office, and continued therein until his successor was duly elected and qualified … Ilis duties are tolerably clearly defined by statutes.

Toney v. Wendling

138 Ind. 228 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 29, 1894

Fickle, Esq., an attorney at law of the Cass Circuit Court, as their guardian ad litem,, who accepted the appointment and qualified according to law. … Such allegations would clearly make a case in which the alienee, in violation of his trust, purchased land with money not his own.