object privilege in Indiana

1986Since the object of this privilege is to insure that a person is not compelled, when acting as a witness, to give any testimony which might tend to show he has committed a crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 12 S.Ct. 195, 197-198 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 , a grant of immunity will be sufficient to supplant this privilege onee the witness has been protected against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom, Lefkowitz v. Turley (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 , because this use immunity leaves the government in substantially the

1986Since the object of this privilege is to insure that a person is not compelled, when acting as a witness, to give any testimony which might tend to show he has committed a crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 12 S.Ct. 195, 197-198 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 , a grant of immunity will be sufficient to supplant this privilege onee the witness has been protected against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom, Lefkowitz v. Turley (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 , because this use immunity leaves the government in substantially the

1986Murphy, supra at 378 U.S. at 79 , 84 S.Ct. at 1609 ; Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n, Inc. [v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, (2 Cir. 1970) ], supra [ 426 F.2d 619 ] at 628.

1986Murphy, supra at 378 U.S. at 79 , 84 S.Ct. at 1609 ; Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n, Inc. [v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, (2 Cir. 1970) ], supra [ 426 F.2d 619 ] at 628.

1986Since the object of this privilege is to insure that a person is not compelled, when acting as a witness, to give any testimony which might tend to show he has committed a crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 12 S.Ct. 195, 197-198 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 , a grant of immunity will be sufficient to supplant this privilege onee the witness has been protected against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom, Lefkowitz v. Turley (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 , because this use immunity leaves the government in substantially the

1986Since the object of this privilege is to insure that a person is not compelled, when acting as a witness, to give any testimony which might tend to show he has committed a crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 12 S.Ct. 195, 197-198 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 , a grant of immunity will be sufficient to supplant this privilege onee the witness has been protected against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom, Lefkowitz v. Turley (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 , because this use immunity leaves the government in substantially the

1982Caudill v. State, (1946) 224 Ind. 531 , 69 N.E.2d 549 .

1982Caudill v. State, (1946) 224 Ind. 531 , 69 N.E.2d 549 .

1991The object of the test year is merely to reflect typical operating conditions of a utility and provide a reliable guide in fixing rates for the future by monitoring actual operating results over a representative period of time. [Citations omitted.] Capital Improvement Board v. Public Service Commission (1978), 176 Ind.App. 240 , 375 N.E.2d 616, 630 .

1991The object of the test year is merely to reflect typical operating conditions of a utility and provide a reliable guide in fixing rates for the future by monitoring actual operating results over a representative period of time. [Citations omitted.] Capital Improvement Board v. Public Service Commission (1978), 176 Ind.App. 240 , 375 N.E.2d 616, 630 .

1991In Samper v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (1952), 231 Ind. 26 , 106 N.E.2d 797 , the Indiana Supreme Court first determined the transaction was intended as entire and indivisible, id. at 39 , 106 N.E.2d at 803 , and then determined the true object of the activity from which the gross income derived.

1991In Samper v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (1952), 231 Ind. 26 , 106 N.E.2d 797 , the Indiana Supreme Court first determined the transaction was intended as entire and indivisible, id. at 39 , 106 N.E.2d at 803 , and then determined the true object of the activity from which the gross income derived.

1986Murphy, supra at 378 U.S. at 79 , 84 S.Ct. at 1609 ; Uniformed Sanitation Men Ass'n, Inc. [v. Commissioner of Sanitation of City of New York, (2 Cir. 1970) ], supra [ 426 F.2d 619 ] at 628.

1981Kastigar, supra 406 U.S. at 453 , 92 S.Ct. at 1661 ; Murphy, supra. Since the object of this privilege is to insure that a person is not compelled, when acting as a witness, to give any testimony which might tend to show he has committed a crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 12 S.Ct. 195, 197-198 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 , a grant of immunity will be sufficient to supplant this privilege once the witness has been protected against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom, Lefkowitz v. Turley, (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 ,

1981Kastigar, supra 406 U.S. at 453 , 92 S.Ct. at 1661 ; Murphy, supra. Since the object of this privilege is to insure that a person is not compelled, when acting as a witness, to give any testimony which might tend to show he has committed a crime, Counselman v. Hitchcock, (1892) 142 U.S. 547, 562 , 12 S.Ct. 195, 197-198 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 , a grant of immunity will be sufficient to supplant this privilege once the witness has been protected against the use of his compelled answers and any evidence derived therefrom, Lefkowitz v. Turley, (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 78 , 94 S.Ct. 316, 322 , 38 L.Ed.2d 274 ,

1932Cas. 1912 A774; Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671 , 100 N.E. 842 ; Bradley v. Thixton (1889), 117 Ind. 255 , 19 N.E. 335 ; Wilson v. Donaldson (1889), 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N.E. 250 , 3 L.R.A. 266 , 10 Am.

1932Cas. 1912 A774; Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671 , 100 N.E. 842 ; Bradley v. Thixton (1889), 117 Ind. 255 , 19 N.E. 335 ; Wilson v. Donaldson (1889), 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N.E. 250 , 3 L.R.A. 266 , 10 Am.

1932Cas. 1912 A774; Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671 , 100 N.E. 842 ; Bradley v. Thixton (1889), 117 Ind. 255 , 19 N.E. 335 ; Wilson v. Donaldson (1889), 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N.E. 250 , 3 L.R.A. 266 , 10 Am.

1932Cas. 1912 A774; Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671 , 100 N.E. 842 ; Bradley v. Thixton (1889), 117 Ind. 255 , 19 N.E. 335 ; Wilson v. Donaldson (1889), 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N.E. 250 , 3 L.R.A. 266 , 10 Am.

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932Cas. 1912 A774; Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671 , 100 N.E. 842 ; Bradley v. Thixton (1889), 117 Ind. 255 , 19 N.E. 335 ; Wilson v. Donaldson (1889), 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N.E. 250 , 3 L.R.A. 266 , 10 Am.

1932Cas. 1912 A774; Hyland v. Rochelle (1913), 179 Ind. 671 , 100 N.E. 842 ; Bradley v. Thixton (1889), 117 Ind. 255 , 19 N.E. 335 ; Wilson v. Donaldson (1889), 117 Ind. 356 , 20 N.E. 250 , 3 L.R.A. 266 , 10 Am.

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1932This means that, for the purpose of learning and giving effect to the legislative intention, statutes relating to the same subject are to be compared, even though some of them have expired or have been repealed, and, so far as still in force, be construed in reference to each other, that effect may be given to all of the provisions of each, if that can be done by any fair and reasonable construction; that the object of the rule is *Page 662 to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the Legislature and it proceeds upon the supposition that the several statutes relating to one subject

1907Co. v. Samuels & Jordt (1895), 11 Tex. Civ.

1904State, ex rel., v. Swarts, 9 Ind. 221, 222 .

1902Co., 101 N. Y. 362, 365 , 4 N. E. 745 : “Under the arbitration clause, it was the duty of each party to act in good faith to accomplish the appraisement in the way provided in the policy, and if either party acted in bad faith so as to defeat the real object of the clause, it absolved the other party from compliance therewith; and if either party refused to go on with the arbitration, or to complete it, or to procure the appointment of an umpire so that there could be an agreement upon an appraisal, the other party was absolved.

1902Co., 101 N. Y. 362, 365 , 4 N. E. 745 : “Under the arbitration clause, it was the duty of each party to act in good faith to accomplish the appraisement in the way provided in the policy, and if either party acted in bad faith so as to defeat the real object of the clause, it absolved the other party from compliance therewith; and if either party refused to go on with the arbitration, or to complete it, or to procure the appointment of an umpire so that there could be an agreement upon an appraisal, the other party was absolved.

1902They could not arbitrarily proceed to set aside the agreement for arbitration and sue for the amount of loss; for the defendant agreed to pay the amount found due by the appraisers, and, in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or culpable neglect, or other conduct amounting to a refusal to proceed with arbitration, the defendant had the right to stand on its contract rights.” In Silver v. Western Assurance Co., 164 N. Y. 381 , 58 N. E. 284 , the court of appeals of New York said: “The contention of the plaintiff in this case is that the evidence is of such a character as to support a finding by th

1902They could not arbitrarily proceed to set aside the agreement for arbitration and sue for the amount of loss; for the defendant agreed to pay the amount found due by the appraisers, and, in the absence of fraud, bad faith, or culpable neglect, or other conduct amounting to a refusal to proceed with arbitration, the defendant had the right to stand on its contract rights.” In Silver v. Western Assurance Co., 164 N. Y. 381 , 58 N. E. 284 , the court of appeals of New York said: “The contention of the plaintiff in this case is that the evidence is of such a character as to support a finding by th

1898It will be admitted, that where a writing has been voluntarily destroyed, with an intent to produce a wrong or injury to the opposite party, or for fraudulent purposes, or to create an excuse for its nonproduction, in such cases, the secondary proof ought not to be received; but in cases where the destruction or loss (although voluntary) happens through mistake or accident, the party cannot be charged with default.”' In Bagley v. McMickle, 9 Cal. 430 , it was said: “The object of the rule of law which requires the production of the best evidence of which the facts sought to be established are

1874The object of this clause was to prevent combinations, by which various and distinct subjects of legislation should gain support, which they could not if presented separately.” The constitution of Western Virginia provides, that “ no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The Supreme Court of that State, in Cutlip v. Sheriff, etc., 3 West Va. 588 , say: “ The object of this provision was to guard against the enactment of laws by a sort of fraud upon the legislature by including in an act for one purpose, which was stated in its title, other and differe

1874The question came before the Court of Appeals in the State of Maryland, in Davis v. The State, 7 Md. 151 .

1874The object of this clause was to prevent combinations, by which various and distinct subjects of legislation should gain support, which they could not if presented separately.” The constitution of Western Virginia provides, that “ no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The Supreme Court of that State, in Cutlip v. Sheriff, etc., 3 West Va. 588 , say: “ The object of this provision was to guard against the enactment of laws by a sort of fraud upon the legislature by including in an act for one purpose, which was stated in its title, other and differe