uniform rule in Indiana

1996However, the law of the case “is not a uniform rule of law, but rather ‘only a discretionary rule of practice.’ ” Id. (quoting United States Smelting, supra, at 199, 70 S.Ct. at 544-45 ).

1989Unlike its kindred rule of res judicata, however, it is not a uniform rule of law, but rather "only a discretionary rule of practice." Id. at 199, 70 S.Ct. at 545 , 94 L.Ed. at 761.

1980If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right of dominion which the owner might otherwise exercise without question, not according to any uniform rule, but so as to make the absolute enjoyment of his own depend upon the arbitrary will of the city authorities, it is invalid, because it fails to furnish a uniform rule of action and leaves the right of property subject to the will of such authorities, who may exercise it so as to give exclusive profits or privileges to particular persons, [citations deleted.] Indiana cases reaching a similar result include City of Richmond v. Dudley, (1891) 1

1980If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right of dominion which the owner might otherwise exercise without question, not according to any uniform rule, but so as to make the absolute enjoyment of his own depend upon the arbitrary will of the city authorities, it is invalid, because it fails to furnish a uniform rule of action and leaves the right of property subject to the will of such authorities, who may exercise it so as to give exclusive profits or privileges to particular persons, [citations deleted.] Indiana cases reaching a similar result include City of Richmond v. Dudley, (1891) 1

1921In the absence of any statute or ordinance prescribing rules for the government of the board or council in determining which plats should be approved and which rejected, this statute obviously conferred no power to enact, by the second section of the ordinance, that no cemetery should be established within the territory named “until a plat of such cemetery has been first filed with and approved by the board of public works and the common council.” “If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right'of dominion which the owner of property might otherwise exercise without question, not according

1921In the absence of any statute or ordinance prescribing rules for the government of the board or council in determining which plats should be approved and which rejected, this statute obviously conferred no power to enact, by the second section of the ordinance, that no cemetery should be established within the territory named “until a plat of such cemetery has been first filed with and approved by the board of public works and the common council.” “If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right'of dominion which the owner of property might otherwise exercise without question, not according

1959Likewise, in Board of Com’rs, etc., v. Harrell, et al. (1897), 147 Ind. 500, 505 , 46 N. E. 124 , it is said: “For the purpose of making such improvement, the legislature may levy a tax upon all or a part of the property in such district by a uniform rule according to its value, or may charge the cost thereof to the property in such district according to what is known as the ‘front foot’ rule, thus determining in advance what property is benefited, or it may delegate to a subordinate agency the power to ascertain and report the benefit, if any, to the different tracts of real estate within suc

1959Likewise, in Board of Com’rs, etc., v. Harrell, et al. (1897), 147 Ind. 500, 505 , 46 N. E. 124 , it is said: “For the purpose of making such improvement, the legislature may levy a tax upon all or a part of the property in such district by a uniform rule according to its value, or may charge the cost thereof to the property in such district according to what is known as the ‘front foot’ rule, thus determining in advance what property is benefited, or it may delegate to a subordinate agency the power to ascertain and report the benefit, if any, to the different tracts of real estate within suc

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1956Conrad v. State (1896) , 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N. E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897) , 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N. E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N. E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N. E. 892 ; Kennedy v .

1912(Italics in above quotation ours.) On this last proposition this court, in the case of Condmtt v. Ryan, supra, on page 8, said: “In Emery v. Tichout [1841], 13 Vt. 15 , the court said that in performing the duty of making the appropriation the courts have not always followed a uniform rule, but that ‘there is one rule which is clear, that is, whenever the intention of the parties at the time can be ascertained that will govern if it be not unlawful.’ ” These conditions are important, in view of the rule that the appropriation may be implied from circumstances as well as by words.

1891In Emery v. Tichout, 13 Vt. 15 , the court said that in performing the duty of making the appropriation the courts have not always followed a uniform rule, but that “ there is one rule which is clear, that is, whenever the intention of the parties at the time can be ascertained that will govern if it be not unlawful.” It is not shown that any special or express application of the payments was made by either Black or the appellants.

2008As this court has explained, “caselaw has applied the juridical link doctrine in limited factual circumstances, namely, where 'all the defendants took part in a similar scheme that was sustained either by a contract or conspiracy, or was mandated by a uniform state rule.’ ” Alexander, 800 N.E.2d at 992 (quoting Payton v. County of Kane, 308 F.3d 673, 678-79 (7th Cir.2002)).

1996A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’ Lewis, supra, at 1118 (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (citation omitted)).

1996A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own or of a coordinate court in any circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’ Lewis, supra, at 1118 (quoting Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 , 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178 , 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (citation omitted)).

1992Smith v. Sparks Milling Co. (1942), 219 Ind. 576 , 39 N.E.2d 125, 135 , reh’g denied (emphasis added).

1992Smith v. Sparks Milling Co. (1942), 219 Ind. 576 , 39 N.E.2d 125, 135 , reh’g denied (emphasis added).

1980If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right of dominion which the owner might otherwise exercise without question, not according to any uniform rule, but so as to make the absolute enjoyment of his own depend upon the arbitrary will of the city authorities, it is invalid, because it fails to furnish a uniform rule of action and leaves the right of property subject to the will of such authorities, who may exercise it so as to give exclusive profits or privileges to particular persons, [citations deleted.] Indiana cases reaching a similar result include City of Richmond v. Dudley, (1891) 1

1980If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right of dominion which the owner might otherwise exercise without question, not according to any uniform rule, but so as to make the absolute enjoyment of his own depend upon the arbitrary will of the city authorities, it is invalid, because it fails to furnish a uniform rule of action and leaves the right of property subject to the will of such authorities, who may exercise it so as to give exclusive profits or privileges to particular persons, [citations deleted.] Indiana cases reaching a similar result include City of Richmond v. Dudley, (1891) 1

1980If an ordinance upon its face restricts the right of dominion which the owner might otherwise exercise without question, not according to any uniform rule, but so as to make the absolute enjoyment of his own depend upon the arbitrary will of the city authorities, it is invalid, because it fails to furnish a uniform rule of action and leaves the right of property subject to the will of such authorities, who may exercise it so as to give exclusive profits or privileges to particular persons, [citations deleted.] Indiana cases reaching a similar result include City of Richmond v. Dudley, (1891) 1

1978When the decision of the trial court is decided to be erroneous, the appellee must pay the costs of the appeal.” (Burns Code Ed.). 2 In State v. Cox (1973), 156 Ind. App. 548 , 297 N.E.2d 920 , this court held that formal exceptions have been rendered unnecessary in criminal cases where the State is appealing a reserved question, according to Criminal Rule 6 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure.

1978When the decision of the trial court is decided to be erroneous, the appellee must pay the costs of the appeal.” (Burns Code Ed.). 2 In State v. Cox (1973), 156 Ind. App. 548 , 297 N.E.2d 920 , this court held that formal exceptions have been rendered unnecessary in criminal cases where the State is appealing a reserved question, according to Criminal Rule 6 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure.

1974Hummer v. School City of Hartford City (1953), 124 Ind. App. 30 , 112 N.E.2d 891 (a uniform rule of governmental immunity from tort liability exists for all involuntary governmental units).

1974Hummer v. School City of Hartford City (1953), 124 Ind. App. 30 , 112 N.E.2d 891 (a uniform rule of governmental immunity from tort liability exists for all involuntary governmental units).

1974Other cases relied upon by the school (Bush v. Smith [1972], 154 Ind. App. 382 , 289 N.E.2d 800 .

1974Other cases relied upon by the school (Bush v. Smith [1972], 154 Ind. App. 382 , 289 N.E.2d 800 .

1972“We find no exceptions to the uniform rule that an estoppel must be specially and strictly pleaded and that no intendments are made in favor of such plea, and when there is grounds for interference or intendment, it will be against and not in favor of estoppel.” (Citing authorities.) Emmco Insurance v. Pashas (1966), 140 Ind. App. 544, 551 ; 224 N. E. 2d 314, 318 .

1972“We find no exceptions to the uniform rule that an estoppel must be specially and strictly pleaded and that no intendments are made in favor of such plea, and when there is grounds for interference or intendment, it will be against and not in favor of estoppel.” (Citing authorities.) Emmco Insurance v. Pashas (1966), 140 Ind. App. 544, 551 ; 224 N. E. 2d 314, 318 .

1971Watson v. Department of Public Welfare of Harrison County (1960), 130 Ind. App. 659, 663 , 165 N. E. 2d 770 (which did not involve tort liability, but was a neglected child case in which the State’s status as a party was questioned), referred to the statutes authorizing state control and said: “As can be seen by the statutes concerning public welfare, state and county departments are rather closely interwoven, and the state has a definite interest in the disposition of all cases handled by the county departments.” That statement is as much a recognition of the county department’s status as a c

1971Watson v. Department of Public Welfare of Harrison County (1960), 130 Ind. App. 659, 663 , 165 N. E. 2d 770 (which did not involve tort liability, but was a neglected child case in which the State’s status as a party was questioned), referred to the statutes authorizing state control and said: “As can be seen by the statutes concerning public welfare, state and county departments are rather closely interwoven, and the state has a definite interest in the disposition of all cases handled by the county departments.” That statement is as much a recognition of the county department’s status as a c

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1956Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290, 295 , 43 N.E. 221 ; Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 243 , 46 N.E. 127 ; Smith v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 252, 260 , 115 N.E. 943 ; Scheerer v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 155, 159 , 149 N.E. 892 ; Kennedy v. State (1935), 209 Ind. 287, 295 , 196 N.E. 316 ; Vehling v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 17, 25 , 196 N.E. 107 ; Sammons v. State (1935), 210 Ind. 40, 43 , 199 N.E. 555 ; Anderson v. State (1941), 218 Ind. 299, 308 , 32 N.E.2d 705 ; Rogers v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 539, 542 , 82 N.E.2d 89 .

1952“That which is expressed makes that which is silent to cease.” 2 State ex rel. v. Goldthait (1909), 172 Ind. 210 , 87 N. E. 133 ; State v. Patterson (1914), 181 Ind. 660 , 105 N. E. 228 , supra; State v. Dearth (1929), 201 Ind. 1, 12 , 164 N. E. 489 ; Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66 , 179 N. E. 270 ; 43 Am.

1952“That which is expressed makes that which is silent to cease.” 2 State ex rel. v. Goldthait (1909), 172 Ind. 210 , 87 N. E. 133 ; State v. Patterson (1914), 181 Ind. 660 , 105 N. E. 228 , supra; State v. Dearth (1929), 201 Ind. 1, 12 , 164 N. E. 489 ; Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66 , 179 N. E. 270 ; 43 Am.

1952“That which is expressed makes that which is silent to cease.” 2 State ex rel. v. Goldthait (1909), 172 Ind. 210 , 87 N. E. 133 ; State v. Patterson (1914), 181 Ind. 660 , 105 N. E. 228 , supra; State v. Dearth (1929), 201 Ind. 1, 12 , 164 N. E. 489 ; Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66 , 179 N. E. 270 ; 43 Am.

1952“That which is expressed makes that which is silent to cease.” 2 State ex rel. v. Goldthait (1909), 172 Ind. 210 , 87 N. E. 133 ; State v. Patterson (1914), 181 Ind. 660 , 105 N. E. 228 , supra; State v. Dearth (1929), 201 Ind. 1, 12 , 164 N. E. 489 ; Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66 , 179 N. E. 270 ; 43 Am.