Case law

Bissell v. Wert

35 Ind. 54 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 15, 1871

It is well settled, both by authority and on principle, that the evidence offered was clearly inadmissible. The general rule is, that witnesses must speak to facts, and that mere opinions are not admissible. … It seems to be established law that in civil as well as in criminal cases, a party cannot be found guilty of a crime, unless upon proof which excludes all reasonable doubt.

Rausch v. Reinhold

716 N.E.2d 993 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1999

The court’s decision will not be *1000 reversed unless prejudicial error is clearly shown. Id. … Since Murray and Allied are to be considered non-parties, the jury may not be informed of their immunity. III.

Silvers v. Canary

114 Ind. 129 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1888

Silvers his widow was duly qualified as administratrix of his estate, and Samuel H. … Silvers was duly appointed and qualified as guardian of the persons and estates of Eva R. and Ellen Louise Silvers, the latter being still infants.

ROBERTS v. STATE OF INDIANA

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Nov 22, 2023

immunity." … The Court notes that since the Parties filed that Motion, the previously established deadlines for their initial disclosures and preliminary witness and exhibit lists have passed. [Dkt. 40.]

Fulford v. Smith Cabinet Mfg. Co.

118 Ind. App. 326 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 10, 1948

This is clearly a case of a complaint by an employer for injunctive relief against *334 a large number of his employees as individuals. … This Act is firmly established as a legislative policy of this State, and under the provisions of the Indiana law great progress has been made in labor management relations in this State.

Moses v. State

269 Ind. 698 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1978

After qualifying as an expert, Judge Anderson testified generally as to the purposes and procedures of the juvenile justice system. … The cases cited *701 by appellant in support of this theory are clearly inappropriate.

Pinkins v. State

799 N.E.2d 1079 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2003

Specifically, we note that for a witness to be qualified as an expert, two requirements must be met. … This court accepts the post-conviction court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Bigler v. State, 732 N.E.2d 191, 194 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.

Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Shelley

163 Ind. 36 · Indiana Supreme Court · May 24, 1904

The board of commissioners thereupon made an order establishing said proposed highway. … This description, when read as a part of said report, is clearly sufficient. Campbell v. Fogg (1891), 132 Ind. 1 ; Mossman v. Forrest (1866), 27 Ind. 233 .

In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of A.G. (Minor Child): A.M. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2015

The judgment will be set aside only if it is clearly erroneous. Id. … The judgment is not clearly erroneous. III.

Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission

172 Ind. 113 · Indiana Supreme Court · Apr 2, 1909

The prevailing rule is tersely and clearly stated by Mr. Justice White, in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. … and of §§21 and 23 of the Bill of Rights (art. 1) of the Constitution of Indiana, which prohibit the demanding of services without just compensation, and the granting to one citizen, or class of citizens, privileges and immunities

Gerald A. Sanders v. AHEPA 78 VI Apartments, Inc.

Indiana Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2024

[20] Here, Sanders established that he suffers from an incontinence problem. … The court found that Sanders was clearly in violation of the lease and ordered his eviction. This finding is amply supported by the record.

Huffman v. Newlee

189 Ind. 14 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 28, 1919

the drain was originally established. … The remonstrance was properly overruled because the evidence failed to show that it was signed by the required number of qualified landowners. 12.

Matter of Kuzman

335 N.E.2d 210 · Indiana Supreme Court · Oct 16, 1975

Respondent was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1959, and has established a reputation as a competent and ethical attorney. … "The practice of the law is not a business but a profession — a form of public trust, the performance of which is entrusted only to those who can qualify by *212 fitness, not the least of which is good moral character.

Tajuddin v. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. Number 3

921 N.E.2d 891 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2010

We will reverse the trial court's findings only if they are clearly erroneous. Id. "Findings are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves us firmly convinced that a mistake has been made." Id. … Testimony from employees of the Lake County Auditor and Lake County Assessor established that this property ID number was a number used by SRI, which administers tax sales for the county.

Howey Ex Rel. Howey v. Tippecanoe School Corp.

734 F. Supp. 1485 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 26, 1990

A qualified occupational therapist and a qualified physical therapist must be used. If the school has qualified personnel (Zander and McCoy), they may be utilized. … Occupational therapy and physical therapy must be provided by qualified personnel.

Matter of ANJ

690 N.E.2d 716 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1998

These allegations must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Ind.Code 31-6-7-13(a). … Clearly, the children were removed from Harold for at least six months under a dispositional decree.

Termination: VG v. Indiana Department of Child Services

69 N.E.3d 464 · Indiana Supreme Court · Feb 17, 2017

Indiana law has accordingly established a “high bar” for the termination of parental rights. In re R.S., 56 N.E.3d 625, 628 (Ind. 2016). … Like “must,” “shall” is mandatory, and we cannot engraft qualifying language onto that directive. See Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 769 (Ind. 2016).

MILLS v. NUNGESTER

District Court, S.D. Indiana · May 18, 2020

“A prosecutor acting in an investigative capacity may claim only the same qualified immunity that protects police officers and other law-enforcement investigators.” … Since Houchin was clearly exercising a prosecutorial function, the Court holds he is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Maize v. State

4 Ind. 342 · Indiana Supreme Court · Nov 29, 1853

For very obvious reasons the principle which may have been partially established by previous assemblies, is not regarded as binding. … Yet most of these acts had in principle been decided by the previous assembly, almost nem. con., as clearly unconstitutional.

Burris v. Parke

948 F. Supp. 1310 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 26, 1996

A review of Section 35-50-2-9 of the Indiana Code clearly establishes that the Indiana death penalty statute applies equally to all criminal defendants that are charged with a capital crime. … A review of the post-trial procedural background of this case clearly establishes that Mr.