Case law

Hill v. State

252 Ind. 601 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 9, 1969

However, it appears that any such deficiency would have to be severe to qualify. Here, the defendant’s I.Q. was 75 or bordering on retardation. … The test, which recognizes cognitive and volitional capacity, would change present Indiana law in that a mental defect is therein clearly established as being a condition which will, where proper, relieve a defendant of criminal

Richards v. Wilson

185 Ind. 335 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 22, 1916

That such a corporation never qualified as the administering trustee cannot affect this fundamental purpose. … The school city of Indianapolis was qualified to receive title to the property and to hold it for the educational uses specified.

Bowyer v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources

944 N.E.2d 972 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2011

that “a waterline always exists, whether legally established or not.” … The fact that the man could be an excellent surveyor does not qualify him to talk about the natural state of the lake bed. Transcript at 94.

Hill v. State

212 Ind. 692 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 23, 1937

Baldwin, the duly appointed, qualified, and acting deputy prosecuting attorney of Howard County, due to the fact that the prosecuting attorney, Paul v. … This instruction is clearly erroneous. The appellant was charged in the affidavit with voluntary manslaughter and one so charged can not be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Plainfield Elks Lodge No. 2186 v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

733 N.E.2d 32 · Indiana Tax Court · Aug 2, 2000

The State Board argues that the Elks’ monetary contributions, as well as the organization’s other donations, are not enough to qualify it for the exemption. … The statute clearly states that a building’s exempt status turns on whether its property is used for the above-mentioned purposes the majority of the time. See Ind.Code Ann. § 6-1.1-10-36.3(a).

Moore v. State

498 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 3, 1986

At the other extreme, a blanket prohibition against the taking *7 of voluntary statements or a permanent immunity from further interrogation, regardless of the circumstances, would transform the Miranda safeguards into wholly … Franzen (ith Cir.1981), 658 F.2d 1158 (the Tth Circuit here clearly makes the distinction between the right to remain silent and the right to counsel); United States v.

Webb v. Jarvis

575 N.E.2d 992 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1991

Having established the ground rules, our analysis follows. I. … Clearly, therefore, there was an absence of privity between them. Jarvis, however, argues that privity is not required here because Dr.

City of Bloomington v. Holt

172 Ind. App. 650 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1977

In fact, the trial court, may cure errors it may have committed in ruling out evidence in its instructions to the jury, where in those instructions the court assumes the existence of the fact sought to be established by the … The instruction clearly advises the jury that it is to only consider how the agreement affects the interests of the parties in the litigation.

Lowery v. State

478 N.E.2d 1214 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 4, 1985

This clearly affected her credibility. … Code § 35-41-2-4 (Burns Repl. 1979), the statute establishing accessory liability.

McCollum v. State

582 N.E.2d 804 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1991

Appellant’s objection to Exhibit 1A, fingerprint cards, is that sufficient chain of custody was not established. This claim is without merit. … Although appellant claims that the court failed to consider mitigating factors which clearly existed, he fails to identify those factors.

Rentokil North America, Inc., and Hunter Horne v. Brenda Hendricks (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2019

This is sufficient evidence to establish the officer as having specialized training and knowledge about accident investigation. … the officer qualified as an expert.

Marigold Overshiner and Earl Overshiner, Individually and as Parents and Guardians of their Minor Daughter, Kaitlyn Overshiner v. Hendricks Regional Health and Ian Johnston, M.D.

119 N.E.3d 1124 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2019

Shuman “as qualified to be an expert,” the following exchange occurred: THE COURT: Any statement from the defense? … provides that a motion for judgment on the evidence shall be granted “[w]here all or some of the issues in a case tried before a jury . . . are not supported by sufficient evidence or a verdict thereon is clearly

White v. Shalala

823 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · May 19, 1993

White must be “disabled” in order to qualify for the benefits she requests. … With all of this in mind, the Seventh Circuit established a test for a plaintiff to establish disability under the Act. Ms.

B & M Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of America

480 N.E.2d 227 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 1985

The fact that interest follows principal together with B & M's right of recovery establishes its property interest in the $34,440.48 of accrued interest. … Appeal bond record keeping is clearly mandated to be done at public expense.

Gauvin v. State

883 N.E.2d 99 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 1, 2008

Parental supervision is crucial to rearing children, but the duration and severity of the pain and suffering Michelle’s stepdaughter endured adequately established torture as an aggravating circumstance. … Clearly, the statutory language makes no exception based on the relationship between the offender and victim. Any person who tortures and subsequently murders another person appears to qualify for the aggravator.

Blake Layman & Levi Sparks v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court · Sep 18, 2015

This felonious conduct was clearly ‘the mediate or immediate cause’ of [his accomplice’s] death.” Id. (emphasis added). … But we clarified, “the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated when the evidentiary facts establishing the essential elements of one offense also establish only one or even several, but not all, of the essential elements

Walb v. Eshelman

176 Ind. 253 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1911

Davis, who made and entered the judgment against him was not, and had not been legally appointed, selected and qualified to act as such judge, and was without jurisdiction in the matter. … This was clearly within his rights, and was the proper practice, for as the method of appointment of special judges is provided by a mandatory statute, it must, upon the objection of a party in interest, be followed.

Department of Treasury v. South Bend Tribune

216 Ind. 285 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 22, 1939

“Appellants insist here, as they did in the state courts, that the sums earned under the advertising contracts are immune from the tax because the contracts are entered into by transactions across state lines and result in … But the court very clearly distinguishes the Fisher’s Blend Station case and other similar cases, and holds that they are not applicable to the facts presented.

State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Montgomery

730 N.E.2d 680 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 27, 2000

The Act provides for the establishment of an HCI fund in each county. Each county fund’s balance is transferred monthly to a state fund. … The reasons for requiring a party to seek administrative remedies are well established.

Hendrix v. Faulkner

525 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 21, 1981

Strickland rule, the immunity defense would be unavailing to [the prison officials] if the constitutional right allegedly infringed by them was clearly established at the time of their challenged conduct, if they knew or … Saxbe in April 1980 was it “clearly established” that due process required documented support in the administrative record for a decision not to call witnesses.