approved rule in Indiana

1972Schafer v. Ort (1931), 202 Ind. 622 , 177 N. E. 438 ; State ex rel.

1972Schafer v. Ort (1931), 202 Ind. 622 , 177 N. E. 438 ; State ex rel.

1972Wilson (1899), 153 Ind. 440, 451 , 55 N. E. 229 : ‘It is the duty of the courts to uphold the law by sustaining elections thereunder that have resulted in a full and fair expression of the public will, and, from the current of authority, the following may be stated as the approved rule: All provisions of the election law are mandatory if enforcement is sought before election in a direct proceeding for that purpose; but after election, all should be held directory only, in support of the result, unless of a character to effect an obstruction to the free and intelligent casting of the vote, or t

1972Wilson (1899), 153 Ind. 440, 451 , 55 N. E. 229 : ‘It is the duty of the courts to uphold the law by sustaining elections thereunder that have resulted in a full and fair expression of the public will, and, from the current of authority, the following may be stated as the approved rule: All provisions of the election law are mandatory if enforcement is sought before election in a direct proceeding for that purpose; but after election, all should be held directory only, in support of the result, unless of a character to effect an obstruction to the free and intelligent casting of the vote, or t

1992In Murray v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1012 , this Court approved an instruction that was essentially identical to final instruction No. 11 in the present case.

1987This Court approved the instruction in Murray v. State (1982), Ind., 442 N.E.2d 1012 .

2014Thomson cites Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Recticel Foam Corp., 716 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), tra ns. denied (2000), for the proposition that "this Court approved the principle that an insurer is estopped from raising policy defenses to coverage when it fails to either defend under a reservation of rights or to seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage. ...” Thomson's XO Br. at 42.

2014Thomson cites Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Recticel Foam Corp., 716 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000), for the proposition that “this Court approved the principle that an insurer is estopped from raising policy defenses to coverage when it fails to either defend under a reservation of rights or to seek a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage ….” Thomson’s XO Br. at 42.

2000This Court approved of the instruction in cases where the victim was the only testifying witness to the crime because it was “unrealistic to take the position that it was necessary for the prosecuting witness’s testimony to be corroborated by other evidence.” Id.

1990Instruction No. 8 is as follows: “While it is the law that every person charged with the commission of a crime is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, yet, if the evidence is so strong and conclusive as to overcome the presumption of innocence, under the law this presumption of innocence will avail nothing to the defendant, and under such circumstances you should convict.” In Millar v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 368 , 295 N.E.2d 814 , this Court approved this instruction and found that it was not unduly repetitive and cumulative of other general reasona

1990Instruction No. 8 is as follows: “While it is the law that every person charged with the commission of a crime is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt, yet, if the evidence is so strong and conclusive as to overcome the presumption of innocence, under the law this presumption of innocence will avail nothing to the defendant, and under such circumstances you should convict.” In Millar v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 368 , 295 N.E.2d 814 , this Court approved this instruction and found that it was not unduly repetitive and cumulative of other general reasona

1982Taylor v. State, (1981) Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1231 .

1982Taylor v. State, (1981) Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1231 .

1980This Court approved of this instruction in Certain v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 101, 104 , 300 N.E.2d 345, 347 .

1980This Court approved of this instruction in Certain v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 101, 104 , 300 N.E.2d 345, 347 .

1965In Garr v. Blissmer, et al. (1962), 132 Ind. App. 635 , 177 N. E. (2d) 913, (Transfer Denied), this court approved the rule as announced in West’s I.

1958This court later approved this rule of construction in Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66, 71 , 179 N. E. 270 , and In re Petition of Justice of the Peace Assn. of Ind. (1958), 237 Ind. 436 , 147 N. E. 2d 16, 19 .

1958This court later approved this rule of construction in Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66, 71 , 179 N. E. 270 , and In re Petition of Justice of the Peace Assn. of Ind. (1958), 237 Ind. 436 , 147 N. E. 2d 16, 19 .

1958In the second case the court similarly stated the law governing a parent’s action for loss of services of a minor child, as follows: “ . . . when the wrongful conduct of the defendant is predicated on negligence, he may avail himself of the defense of contributory negligence of the child.” ( 204 Ind. at page 165 , 178 N. E. at page 445 .) And the overwhelming weight of authority from other jurisdictions is to the same effect.

1958In the second case the court similarly stated the law governing a parent’s action for loss of services of a minor child, as follows: “ . . . when the wrongful conduct of the defendant is predicated on negligence, he may avail himself of the defense of contributory negligence of the child.” ( 204 Ind. at page 165 , 178 N. E. at page 445 .) And the overwhelming weight of authority from other jurisdictions is to the same effect.

1958This court later approved this rule of construction in Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66, 71 , 179 N. E. 270 , and In re Petition of Justice of the Peace Assn. of Ind. (1958), 237 Ind. 436 , 147 N. E. 2d 16, 19 .

1958This court later approved this rule of construction in Robinson v. Moser (1931), 203 Ind. 66, 71 , 179 N. E. 270 , and In re Petition of Justice of the Peace Assn. of Ind. (1958), 237 Ind. 436 , 147 N. E. 2d 16, 19 .

1941But appellee claims that by refusing to transfer the case of Armstrong v. Binzer (1936), 102 Ind. App. 497 , 199 N. E. 863 , this court approved an instruction like the one we are now considering.

1941But appellee claims that by refusing to transfer the case of Armstrong v. Binzer (1936), 102 Ind. App. 497 , 199 N. E. 863 , this court approved an instruction like the one we are now considering.

1932In McQueen v. State (1882), 82 Ind. 72 ) this court approved an instruction which contained the following: “If, however, the jury should be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, after a full consideration of all the evidence in the case, including the testimony in regard to the character of the defendants for honesty, then, in that view of the case, though the jury might believe that the defendant had a good character for honesty before the alleged robbery, that would not avail them as a defense, or entitle them to an acquittal.” The instruction in the instant ca

1932In McQueen v. State (1882), 82 Ind. 72 ) this court approved an instruction which contained the following: “If, however, the jury should be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, after a full consideration of all the evidence in the case, including the testimony in regard to the character of the defendants for honesty, then, in that view of the case, though the jury might believe that the defendant had a good character for honesty before the alleged robbery, that would not avail them as a defense, or entitle them to an acquittal.” The instruction in the instant ca

1932In McQueen v. State (1882), 82 Ind. 72 ) this court approved an instruction which contained the following: “If, however, the jury should be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, after a full consideration of all the evidence in the case, including the testimony in regard to the character of the defendants for honesty, then, in that view of the case, though the jury might believe that the defendant had a good character for honesty before the alleged robbery, that would not avail them as a defense, or entitle them to an acquittal.” The instruction in the instant ca

1932In McQueen v. State (1882), 82 Ind. 72 ) this court approved an instruction which contained the following: “If, however, the jury should be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, after a full consideration of all the evidence in the case, including the testimony in regard to the character of the defendants for honesty, then, in that view of the case, though the jury might believe that the defendant had a good character for honesty before the alleged robbery, that would not avail them as a defense, or entitle them to an acquittal.” The instruction in the instant ca

1924That it is the duty of a guardian to take into his possession, so far as he is able, the estate of the ward, wheresoever it may be, was decided in Micou v. Lamar (1881), 7 Fed. 180 .

1920Instruction .No. 8 was taken from an approved instruction given in the case of Hanes v. State (1900), 155 Ind. 122 , 57 N. E. 704 .

1903The approved rule is thus stated: “ ‘The alternative writ, when issued, will be taken as in the nature of a complaint in the cause, and must show what is claimed, and in itself, or in connection with the complaint, petition or affidavit on which it is issued, show the ground upon which the claim is made; and the facts stated must be sufficient in law to entitle the party to the writ.’ ” Gill v. State, ex rel., supra; Potts v. State, ex rel., 75 Ind. 336 ; Wampler v. State, ex rel., 148 Ind. 557 , 38 L.

1903The approved rule is thus stated: “ ‘The alternative writ, when issued, will be taken as in the nature of a complaint in the cause, and must show what is claimed, and in itself, or in connection with the complaint, petition or affidavit on which it is issued, show the ground upon which the claim is made; and the facts stated must be sufficient in law to entitle the party to the writ.’ ” Gill v. State, ex rel., supra; Potts v. State, ex rel., 75 Ind. 336 ; Wampler v. State, ex rel., 148 Ind. 557 , 38 L.

1902That which seems the more reasonable view expressed above,'and which follows Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 366 , Newport v. State, 140 Ind. 299, 302 , Smith v. State, 112 Ind. 288 , and Keesier v. State, 154: Ind. 242, may now be said to be the approved rule.

1902That which seems the more reasonable view expressed above,'and which follows Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 366 , Newport v. State, 140 Ind. 299, 302 , Smith v. State, 112 Ind. 288 , and Keesier v. State, 154: Ind. 242, may now be said to be the approved rule.

1902That which seems the more reasonable view expressed above,'and which follows Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 366 , Newport v. State, 140 Ind. 299, 302 , Smith v. State, 112 Ind. 288 , and Keesier v. State, 154: Ind. 242, may now be said to be the approved rule.

1901Co. v. Rush, 127 Ind. 545 , an action by a father for the death of his infant daughter, the court approved an instruction that in estimating the plaintiff’s damages the jury might consider the condition of his family at the time of the alleged accident, and take into account all the services that this child might reasonably have performed until her majority; and that such services might include actual labor in helping to carry on the household affairs and the pecuniary value of all acts of kindness and attention which it might reasonably be anticipated she would have performed for the plaintif

1901In Fidelity Lodge v. Bond, 147 Ind. 437, 442 , the court approved as a doctrine obtaining in this jurisdiction in relation to party walls, the proposition that each adjoining proprietor is the owner in severalty of his part, both of the wall and of the land on which it stands, subject to a cross-easement of support and for other common needs in favor of the other proprietor.

1898In Rinn v. Rhodes, supra, the court held that the assumption of a married woman of the debt of her husband, for which she was surety, was a valuable consideration for the sale to her of personal property by her husband.

1895In Phillbrook v. Emswiler, 92 Ind. 590 , this court approved the rule in this language: “Nothing is better settled than that where two parties have entered into a written contract, all previous negotiations and propositions in relation to such contract, whether parol or written, are to be regarded as merged in the final agreement.

1892In Lowder v. Lowder, supra, this court approved an instruction to a jury in the following terms: “ In legal contemplation, one who has sufficient mind to know ánd understand the business in which he is engaged, who has sufficient mental capacity to enable him to know and understand the extent of his estate, the persons who would naturally be supposed to be the objects of his bounty, and who could keep these in his mind long enough to, and could, form a rational judgment in relation to them, is a person of sound mind.” This is quoted with approval in Burkhart v. Gladish, supra, and also in Durh