case falls within rule in Indiana

1998Yakos, however, contends that this case falls within the exception to the exclusive remedy provision set forth in Stump v. Commercial Union, 601 N.E.2d 327 (Ind.1992) (a response to a certified question from the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division).

1983He first claims, however, that this case falls within the exception set forth in Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co., (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054 . in Compbell, this court held that in order to recover for retaliatory discharge the "plaintiff must demonstrate that he was discharged in retaliation for either having exercised a statutorily conferred personal right or having fulfilled a statutorily imposed duty." Id. at 1061 .

1983He first claims, however, that this case falls within the exception set forth in Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co., (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054 . in Compbell, this court held that in order to recover for retaliatory discharge the "plaintiff must demonstrate that he was discharged in retaliation for either having exercised a statutorily conferred personal right or having fulfilled a statutorily imposed duty." Id. at 1061 .

1973Judge Emmert, speaking for this Court in the Baker case, very ably and completely discussed the principle of law involved and in so doing stated at page 62, 138 N.E.2d at page 645 : "When we carefully examine the cases decided in the long history of this court which have reversed convictions because they were not sustained by sufficient evidence, it is apparent that the court was applying a test that some material allegation had not been proved by substantial evidence so that no reasonable man could say this issue had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." When we analyze the case at bar, the

1970An examination of the affidavits filed in this case, however, discloses that the factual situation here more nearly parallels that in Luck, supra, rather than in Conrad .

1970An examination of the affidavits filed in this case, however, discloses that the factual situation here more nearly parallels that in Luck, supra, rather than in Conrad .

1970The appellant, however, maintains that this case falls within an exception to the rule in that jurors made an unauthorized visit to the scene of the crime, and the influence of this unauthorized view is admissible under the rules set out under Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290 , 43 N. E. 221 .

1970The appellant, however, maintains that this case falls within an exception to the rule in that jurors made an unauthorized visit to the scene of the crime, and the influence of this unauthorized view is admissible under the rules set out under Conrad v. State (1896), 144 Ind. 290 , 43 N. E. 221 .

1939In the case of Coulter v. Coulter (1937), 103 Ind. App. 565, 567 , 9 N. E. (2d) 141, in passing upon the question of the weight of the evidence the court said: “Appellant next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charge of abandonment made against her by appellee.

1939In the case of Robinson v. Horner (1916), 62 Ind. App. 456, 460 , 113 N. E. 10 , cited by appellee, this court has said: “There are many decisions of the Supreme Court construing said section, and it has been decided that where the evidence is in part oral, and there is a conflict in such evidence, this court will not weigh the evidence. ’ ’ This case falls within that rule.

1939In the case of Robinson v. Horner (1916), 62 Ind. App. 456, 460 , 113 N. E. 10 , cited by appellee, this court has said: “There are many decisions of the Supreme Court construing said section, and it has been decided that where the evidence is in part oral, and there is a conflict in such evidence, this court will not weigh the evidence. ’ ’ This case falls within that rule.

1937He cannot reasonably be required to act until knowledge that action is needed is possible to him.” We are not persuaded that this case falls within the rule of mistaken boundary as announced in Rennert v. Shirk (1904), 163 Ind. 542, 551 , 72 N. E. 546 , wherein this court said: .“Appellant insists, however, that if one takes and holds possession of real estate under a mistake as to where the true boundary line is, such possession can not ripen into a title.

1937He cannot reasonably be required to act until knowledge that action is needed is possible to him.” We are not persuaded that this case falls within the rule of mistaken boundary as announced in Rennert v. Shirk (1904), 163 Ind. 542, 551 , 72 N. E. 546 , wherein this court said: .“Appellant insists, however, that if one takes and holds possession of real estate under a mistake as to where the true boundary line is, such possession can not ripen into a title.

1934We think the case falls within the rule as announced in the Ransdel v. Moore case, and the well considered case of Westphal v. Hickman (1916), 185 Ind. 88 , 113 N. E. 299 .

1934We think the case falls within the rule as announced in the Ransdel v. Moore case, and the well considered case of Westphal v. Hickman (1916), 185 Ind. 88 , 113 N. E. 299 .

1931The case falls within the rule that ‘The surety is discharged where collateral securities held by the creditor from the principal debtor are voluntarily returned without the consent of the surety, at least to the value of such collateral securities.’ ” See, also, Nichols, etc., Co. v. Burch (1891), 128 Ind. 324 , 27 N. E. 737 ; Sterne v. McKinney (1881), 79 Ind. 578 ; Weik v. Pugh (1884), 92 Ind. 382 ; Wasson v. Hodshire (1886), 108 Ind. 26 , 8 N. E. 621 .

1931The case falls within the rule that ‘The surety is discharged where collateral securities held by the creditor from the principal debtor are voluntarily returned without the consent of the surety, at least to the value of such collateral securities.’ ” See, also, Nichols, etc., Co. v. Burch (1891), 128 Ind. 324 , 27 N. E. 737 ; Sterne v. McKinney (1881), 79 Ind. 578 ; Weik v. Pugh (1884), 92 Ind. 382 ; Wasson v. Hodshire (1886), 108 Ind. 26 , 8 N. E. 621 .

1931The case falls within the rule that ‘The surety is discharged where collateral securities held by the creditor from the principal debtor are voluntarily returned without the consent of the surety, at least to the value of such collateral securities.’ ” See, also, Nichols, etc., Co. v. Burch (1891), 128 Ind. 324 , 27 N. E. 737 ; Sterne v. McKinney (1881), 79 Ind. 578 ; Weik v. Pugh (1884), 92 Ind. 382 ; Wasson v. Hodshire (1886), 108 Ind. 26 , 8 N. E. 621 .

1931The case falls within the rule that ‘The surety is discharged where collateral securities held by the creditor from the principal debtor are voluntarily returned without the consent of the surety, at least to the value of such collateral securities.’ ” See, also, Nichols, etc., Co. v. Burch (1891), 128 Ind. 324 , 27 N. E. 737 ; Sterne v. McKinney (1881), 79 Ind. 578 ; Weik v. Pugh (1884), 92 Ind. 382 ; Wasson v. Hodshire (1886), 108 Ind. 26 , 8 N. E. 621 .

1931The case falls within the rule that ‘The surety is discharged where collateral securities held by the creditor from the principal debtor are voluntarily returned without the consent of the surety, at least to the value of such collateral securities.’ ” See, also, Nichols, etc., Co. v. Burch (1891), 128 Ind. 324 , 27 N. E. 737 ; Sterne v. McKinney (1881), 79 Ind. 578 ; Weik v. Pugh (1884), 92 Ind. 382 ; Wasson v. Hodshire (1886), 108 Ind. 26 , 8 N. E. 621 .

1931The case falls within the rule that ‘The surety is discharged where collateral securities held by the creditor from the principal debtor are voluntarily returned without the consent of the surety, at least to the value of such collateral securities.’ ” See, also, Nichols, etc., Co. v. Burch (1891), 128 Ind. 324 , 27 N. E. 737 ; Sterne v. McKinney (1881), 79 Ind. 578 ; Weik v. Pugh (1884), 92 Ind. 382 ; Wasson v. Hodshire (1886), 108 Ind. 26 , 8 N. E. 621 .

1925The appellee also contends that this case falls within the rule as laid down in Coleman's Exr. v. Meade (1877), 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 358 ; Farris v. Hughes, Admr. (1893), 89 Va. 930 , 17 S. E. 518 , and Mundy v. Irwin (1915), 20 N. M. 43, 145 Pac. 1080 , Ann.

1925The appellee also contends that this case falls within the rule as laid down in Coleman's Exr. v. Meade (1877), 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 358 ; Farris v. Hughes, Admr. (1893), 89 Va. 930 , 17 S. E. 518 , and Mundy v. Irwin (1915), 20 N. M. 43, 145 Pac. 1080 , Ann.

1925The appellee also contends that this case falls within the rule as laid down in Coleman's Exr. v. Meade (1877), 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 358 ; Farris v. Hughes, Admr. (1893), 89 Va. 930 , 17 S. E. 518 , and Mundy v. Irwin (1915), 20 N. M. 43, 145 Pac. 1080 , Ann.

1925The appellee also contends that this case falls within the rule as laid down in Coleman's Exr. v. Meade (1877), 76 Ky. (13 Bush) 358 ; Farris v. Hughes, Admr. (1893), 89 Va. 930 , 17 S. E. 518 , and Mundy v. Irwin (1915), 20 N. M. 43, 145 Pac. 1080 , Ann.

1920The substantial facts being undisputed, the case falls within the rule announced in the case of Muncie Foundry, etc., Co. v. Thompson (1919), 70, Ind. App. 157, 123 N. E. 196 .

1904“The case falls within the rule that a ministerial officer who has in his hands a specific fund may be compelled by mandamus to make lawful distribution of the fund.” Ingerman v. State, ex rel. (1890), 128 Ind. 225 -227.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.

1895Another line of decisions jji^this State is probably violated by the claim oOdHHhtellants, and that is that equity will not enfolj^^^Bpialf of a mere volunteer, an executory parolipBHr Noe v. Roll, 134 Ind. 115 ; Peterson v. Boswell, supra; Stonehill v. Swartz, supra; Pearson v. Pearson, supra; Wright v. Moody, supra; Gaylord v. City of Lafayette, 115 Ind. 423 ; Tescall v. Tully, supra; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42 ; Fouty v. Fouty, supra; Irwin v. Ivers, supra. If many of these cases were correctly decided, the case falls within the rule suggested.