Case law

Hudson v. State

462 N.E.2d 1077 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1984

Our supreme court has clearly stated that when mug shots, clearly identifiable as such, are admitted at trial and not objected to, all error based thereon is waived. Robbins v. … But these photographs were not entered into evidence for the purpose of establishing Hudson’s prior criminal activity.

Garrison v. State

589 N.E.2d 1156 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1992

Given this finding, it clearly was no abuse of discretion to fail to interrogate the juror. We find no error here. … s comparison testimony because she was not qualified as an expert in graphology. In addition, he cites, inter alia, the case of Spencer v.

Jones v. Angell

95 Ind. 376 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 14, 1884

It clearly and distinctly informed the jury that to defeat a recovery, for the cause mentioned, there must be a failure of proof as to one or more material allegations in both paragraphs, not one, of the complaint. … There was evidence establishing, or strongly tending to establish, the fact alluded to in the instruction.

Network Towers, LLC v. BD. OF ZONING APPEALS OF LaPORTE CTY.

770 N.E.2d 837 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2002

A conditional use is a desirable use which is attended with detrimental effects which require that certain conditions be met before it can be established at a given location. … The Ordinance before us quite clearly specifies that it provides for a conditional use permit, not a variance.

Lazzell v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration

775 N.E.2d 1113 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2002

Therefore, to establish his income levels, Mr. Lazzell provided the OFC with a profit and loss statement covering the first five months of 2000. … Using the net income from the current year, the applicant would qualify for benefits, but, using the net income from the prior year, the applicant would not qualify.

White v. Suggs

56 Ind. App. 572 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1914

The testator’s wife, Margaret, was named as executrix of the will, but never qualified as such, never remarried and died November 1, 1898. … This language shows clearly an intent on the part of the legislature to prevent a suit before the expiration of the year.

Seniours v. State

634 N.E.2d 803 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 31, 1994

The court granted Coriden's motion to withdraw, but found that Seniours did not qualify to have a public *804 defender represent him. … To make such a determination, the trial court must conduct a hearing to determine the defendant's competency to represent himself and also to establish a record of the waiver. Dowell, supra.

Mundy v. Angelicchio

623 N.E.2d 456 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1993

This does not qualify as perceiving a material event, condition, or transaction. The present sense impression exception is not established to admit the hearsay evidence. 2. … The attorney may not even vote on the MRP's opinion, because he is not qualified to do so. See I.C. 16-9.5-9-8.

Massie v. Indiana Gas Co.

752 F. Supp. 261 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Oct 30, 1990

The plaintiff merely asserts that this policy “is clearly the type of benefit which is protected.... ” Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 7. … Under this version, to establish an ERISA prima facie case the plaintiff must show that he [she] (1) belongs to the protected class, (2) was qualified for the position involved, and (3) was discharged or denied employment

Deryk Hutton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2016

Bollinger, is a qualified polygraph examiner and is qualified by his education, training and experience to testify as an expert witness in interpreting the results of the polygraph examination performed … As noted above, Hutton stipulated the examiner was qualified. He did not challenge the examiner’s qualifications.

Humphries v. McAuley

205 Ind. 469 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 27, 1933

destruction of all the papers pertaining to, and of all the ballots at, the October election, 1876, in Clinton township, in that event, we think, that the appellant might have shown by the oral testimony of each of the qualified … So in the instant case, the contestor having the bur *481 den of proof, it was his duty to establish by legal evidence that he received the highest number of votes cast for sheriff, and until he established by evidence for

National Labor Relations Board v. Evansville Courier Co.

937 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, S.D. Indiana · Aug 28, 1996

However, the closing paragraph of Endicott states: The subpoena power delegated by the Statute as here exercised is so clearly within the limits of Congressional authority that it is not necessary to discuss the constitutional … The Supreme Court declined to establish such a privilege. Id. at 690 , 92 S.Ct. at 2661 .

Alleshouse v. State

565 N.E.2d 340 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1991

The burden is upon the creditor to establish the debt as squarely within the statutory exceptions. In re Schmidt (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1986), 70 B.R. 634, 638 . … The court found the student’s loans were dis-chargeable because only the agreed-to period qualified as a suspension.

Kenneth Alford v. Johnson County Commissioners

92 N.E.3d 653 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2017

Lastly, in certain exigent circumstances, a trial court may request that the State Public Defender provide a qualified attorney for the defense of an indigent person. Ind. Code § 33-40-2-1. … Lastly, the trial court found that the Judicial Appellees were entitled to immunity as to all claims for damages. Id. at 44. Appellants now appeal.

Young v. State

266 Ind. 557 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 21, 1977

It was, for the most part, unsupportive of a claim of insanity, although it did contain the following concluding statements: “Summarily, Benny clearly is able at this time to comprehend the nature of the charges against him … Both witnesses qualified as experts by reason of their educational backgrounds and extensive experience in the area of psychological testing; and their testimony constituted substantial evidence of probative value.

McFadden v. Ross

93 Ind. 134 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1883

McFadden was, on the 26th day of March, 1880, by the Shelby Circuit Court, appointed administrator of the estate of Joseph Nichols, deceased, and that he lawfully qualified as such administrator; that James R. … When, therefore, the cause was submitted upon petition and answer, no proof was necessary to establish the allegations.of the petition.

Z C v. Review Board

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2023

Thus, Z.C. argues that “[he] qualifies.” Id. [19] We, however, disagree. … Therefore, the Department was clearly within the statutory timeframe during which it could notify Z.C. of the overpayment and begin seeking repayment.

Shook Heavy & Environmental Construction Group v. City of Kokomo

632 N.E.2d 355 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1994

Allowing unsuccessful bidders to seek injunctive relief when statutory procedures are not adhered to clearly would further this goal. … Clearly an unsuccessful bidder has no common law cause of action against the party soliciting bids if another bidder is chosen.

Barnett v. State

100 Ind. 171 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jan 29, 1885

If an instruction may be thus separated into fractional parts, so that one portion may not limit and qualify, or extend and explain another portion, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to form an instruction that will … In the fifth instruction requested by appellant, the court was asked to charge the jury, that if the evidence established *180 an old grudge, or hostile declarations, on the part of appellant against the deceased, the jury

Yovanda R. Vaughn, individually and as special representative of the Estate of Anderson Vaughn, Jr. v. Christopher T. Haughn, M.D., Evansville Surgical Associates (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2015

We reverse a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence only if that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or … The intricacies of laparoscopic surgery are clearly a complex subject matter that requires expert evidence. As such, we decline to apply the common knowledge exception to this case.