departure rule in Indiana

2003Id. at 447 , 89 S.Ct. at 605 .

2003Id. at 447 , 89 S.Ct. at 605 .

1988This court also recognized a departure from the rule in Rosenbalm v. Winski (1975), 165 Ind.App. 378 , 382 N.E.2d 249 , trans. denied.

1988This court also recognized a departure from the rule in Rosenbalm v. Winski (1975), 165 Ind. App. 378 , 332 N.E.2d 249 , trans. denied.

1983It may be noted at this point that all these decisions of the Court of Appeals represent a departure from the rule established in an earlier decision of that Court, Yerkes v. Washington Manufacturing Company, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 692 , 326 N.E.2d 629 .

1983It may be noted at this point that all these decisions of the Court of Appeals represent a departure from the rule established in an earlier decision of that Court, Yerkes v. Washington Manufacturing Company, (1975) 163 Ind.App. 692 , 326 N.E.2d 629 .

1973This does not appear to be a substantial departure from the rule announced by this Court in State v. Smith, supra: “* * * if the value of the appellees’ residual land is enhanced because the location of the new highway has made it desirable for purposes other than farming, such enhanced value is a special benefit to them, although other landowners along the highway may be similarly benefited; * * * .” 237 Ind. at 79 .

1970In Anderson v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 372 , 156 N.E.2d 384 , the Court in holding that it was not error to deny the defendant's motion to produce police reports containing statements of prosecuting witnesses said: "We do not here decide that under no circumstances may the accused inspect statements made by witnesses which are a part of such file, as where it is first shown that such statements are in direct conflict with the testimony of the witnesses in open court and that such prior statements would prove the innocence of the accused.

1970In Anderson v. State (1959), 289 Ind. 372 , 156 N. E. 2d 384 , the Court in holding that it was not error to deny the defendant’s motion to produce police reports containing statements of prosecuting witnesses said: “We do not here decide that under no circumstances may the accused inspect statements made by witnesses which are a part of such file, as where it is first shown that such statements are in direct conflict with the testimony of the witnesses in open court and that such prior statements would prove the innocence of the accused.

1957Co. v. Hadley (1907), 170 Ind. 204 , 40 Ind. App. 731 , 82 N. E. 1025 , 84 N. E. 13 ; The Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry.

1957Co. v. Hadley (1907), 170 Ind. 204 , 40 Ind. App. 731 , 82 N. E. 1025 , 84 N. E. 13 ; The Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry.

1957Co. v. Hadley (1907), 170 Ind. 204 , 40 Ind. App. 731 , 82 N. E. 1025 , 84 N. E. 13 ; The Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Ry.

1943The language of the Cutsinger case, supra, was not designed to indicate a departure from the rule an *411 nounced in Murphy v. Daly (1934), 206 Ind. 179 , 188 N. E. 769 , and its use in connection with a different question was unnecessary.

1943The language of the Cutsinger case, supra, was not designed to indicate a departure from the rule an *411 nounced in Murphy v. Daly (1934), 206 Ind. 179 , 188 N. E. 769 , and its use in connection with a different question was unnecessary.

1919Ellingham v. Dye (1912), 178 Ind. 336 , 99 N. E. 1, 29 , Ann.

1919Ellingham v. Dye (1912), 178 Ind. 336 , 99 N. E. 1, 29 , Ann.

1918Most of the later cases on the subject follow the rule announced in Spencer v. Merchant (1887), 125 U. S. 345 , 8 Sup. Ct. 921, 31 L.

1918Most of the later cases on the subject follow the rule announced in Spencer v. Merchant (1887), 125 U. S. 345 , 8 Sup. Ct. 921, 31 L.

1894The true theory is that there must be a decision by a court of original jurisdiction to be reviewed by the appellate tribunal, for unless this be so, the appellate court becomes a trial court.” It has been held by this court that “a pleading which is insufficient on demurrer may, in some instances, in the absence of a demurrer, be cured by the verdict. ” Shaw v. Merchants’ Nat’l Bank, 60 Ind. 83 ; Indianapolis, etc., R.

1892The statement is immaterial to the opinion and was made in view of the fact that counsel for appellee had filed four separate briefs in the case, and three of them were devoted almost exclusively to an attack upon the decision in the case of Houk v. Allen, supra, insisting that it was not sound in reason, and was a departure from the rule as declared by this court in earlier cases, and that it should be overruled, which is regarded as clearly ah implied admission that the case was decisive of the question and must be overruled in order to avoid a reversal of the judgment in this case, and for

1892We are still inclined to adhere to the decision in Houk v. Allen, supra, and to hold that it is decisive of the question presented in this case in relation to the misconduct of the jury.

1891The opinions in the cases of Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313 , and Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78 , were written by the same great judge, Mr. Justice Harlan, who wrote the opinions in Patterson v. Kentucky, supra, and in Smith v. Alabama, etc., Co., supra, and there is not in them the slightest intimation of a departure from the doctrine of the former cases ; on the contrary, those doctrines are adhered to, and the meat inspection laws were condemned because they discriminated against the citizens of other States.

1891The opinions in the cases of Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313 , and Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78 , were written by the same great judge, Mr. Justice Harlan, who wrote the opinions in Patterson v. Kentucky, supra, and in Smith v. Alabama, etc., Co., supra, and there is not in them the slightest intimation of a departure from the doctrine of the former cases ; on the contrary, those doctrines are adhered to, and the meat inspection laws were condemned because they discriminated against the citizens of other States.

1891The opinions in the cases of Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313 , and Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78 , were written by the same great judge, Mr. Justice Harlan, who wrote the opinions in Patterson v. Kentucky, supra, and in Smith v. Alabama, etc., Co., supra, and there is not in them the slightest intimation of a departure from the doctrine of the former cases ; on the contrary, those doctrines are adhered to, and the meat inspection laws were condemned because they discriminated against the citizens of other States.