laid down rule in Indiana

1992In Baum, the court laid down the rule that the "rigorous standard [of coun-set's performance] set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 " does not apply in post-conviction proceedings because the right to counsel in those proceedings is guaranteed by neither the United States nor the Indiana Constitution.

1992In Baum, the court laid down the rule that the "rigorous standard [of coun-set's performance] set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 " does not apply in post-conviction proceedings because the right to counsel in those proceedings is guaranteed by neither the United States nor the Indiana Constitution.

1950The case of Capp v. Stewart (1872), 38 Ind. 479 , wherein the court laid down the rule that in order for the wife’s interest in real estate to be subject to a lien she must have done such acts as would “bind her personally if she were free from coverture,” must be held overruled by subsequent cases.

1942A. 522, 523, in which the court says that an injury, “ ‘arises out of the employment; when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury.” (Our italics.) Also, the following cases where this court laid down the rule that an injury by accident arises out of the employment when there is a causal connection between it and the performance of some service of the employment: In Re Harraden (1917), 66 Ind. App. 298, 304 , 118 N. E. 142 ; Empire He

1942A. 522, 523, in which the court says that an injury, “ ‘arises out of the employment; when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury.” (Our italics.) Also, the following cases where this court laid down the rule that an injury by accident arises out of the employment when there is a causal connection between it and the performance of some service of the employment: In Re Harraden (1917), 66 Ind. App. 298, 304 , 118 N. E. 142 ; Empire He

1942Co. v. Purcell (1921), 76 Ind. App. 551, 555 , 132 N. E. 664 ; Williams v. School City of Winchester (1937), 104 Ind. App. 83, 90, 96 , 10 N. E. (2d) 314.

1942Co. v. Purcell (1921), 76 Ind. App. 551, 555 , 132 N. E. 664 ; Williams v. School City of Winchester (1937), 104 Ind. App. 83, 90, 96 , 10 N. E. (2d) 314.

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1921Cas. 914, this court laid down the rule: “That in trials for receiving stolen goods evidence tending to prove that other stolen goods were found in the possession of the defendant at the time, or prior to the receiving complained of, is competent * * * on the question of guilty knowledge.” (Our italics.) In the following cases it was held error to admit subsequent receipts: People v. Willard (1891), 92 Cal. 482 , 28 Pac. 585 ; People v. Buskin (1912), 254 Ill. 509 , 98 N. E. 957 ; People v. Bindley (1918), 282 Ill. 377 , 118 N. E. 719 ; State v. Moxley (1910), 41 Mont. 402 , 110 Pac. 83 .

1876In The Commonwealth v. Titus, 116 Mass. 42 , the court laid down the rule as follows: “ The finder of lost goods may lawfully take them into his possession, and if he does so without any felonious intent at that time, a subsequent conversion of them to his own use, by whatever intent that conversion is accompanied, will not constitute larceny.