rational inquiry in Indiana

1995The absence from the statute of specific procedures is reasonable in light of this limited purpose and function and does not raise a serious constitutional question on the ground of vagueness or indefiniteness. 404 N.E.2d at 596 .

1995The absence from the statute of specific procedures is reasonable in light of this limited purpose and function and does not raise a serious constitutional question on the ground of vagueness or indefiniteness. 404 N.E.2d at 596 .

1973The majority rule, as we noted previously from Brown v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 184 , 154 N.E.2d 720 , seems to us to be the better and more rational principle to follow.

1973The majority rule, as we noted previously from Brown v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 184 , 154 N.E.2d 720 , seems to us to be the better and more rational principle to follow.

1957Ikerd v. Beavers (1886), 106 Ind. 483 , 7 N. E. 326 ; Lindsay v. Glass (1889), 119 Ind. 301 , 21 N. E. 897 .” (Our emphasis) The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the record in the instant case is that the proper measure of mutual respect, confidence and sympathy between the parties was lacking and that some form of discontent had arisen which created the abandonment of the contract for some nine and one-half years.

1957Ikerd v. Beavers (1886), 106 Ind. 483 , 7 N. E. 326 ; Lindsay v. Glass (1889), 119 Ind. 301 , 21 N. E. 897 .” (Our emphasis) The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the record in the instant case is that the proper measure of mutual respect, confidence and sympathy between the parties was lacking and that some form of discontent had arisen which created the abandonment of the contract for some nine and one-half years.

1957Ikerd v. Beavers (1886), 106 Ind. 483 , 7 N. E. 326 ; Lindsay v. Glass (1889), 119 Ind. 301 , 21 N. E. 897 .” (Our emphasis) The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the record in the instant case is that the proper measure of mutual respect, confidence and sympathy between the parties was lacking and that some form of discontent had arisen which created the abandonment of the contract for some nine and one-half years.

1957Ikerd v. Beavers (1886), 106 Ind. 483 , 7 N. E. 326 ; Lindsay v. Glass (1889), 119 Ind. 301 , 21 N. E. 897 .” (Our emphasis) The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the record in the instant case is that the proper measure of mutual respect, confidence and sympathy between the parties was lacking and that some form of discontent had arisen which created the abandonment of the contract for some nine and one-half years.

2001In doing so, we reviewed the Seventh Cireuit's decision in Osteen v. Henley, et al, 13 F.3d 221 (7th Cir.1993). 1 Osteen was a state university student who broke the noses of two other students during an altercation one evening outside a bar.

1994Kranda v. Houser-Norborg Medical Corp. (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 , reh'g denied, 424 N.E.2d *221 1064, trans. denied, appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 802 , 103 S.Ct. 23 , 74 L.Ed.2d 39 (1982).

1994Kranda v. Houser-Norborg Medical Corp. (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 , reh'g denied, 424 N.E.2d *221 1064, trans. denied, appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 802 , 103 S.Ct. 23 , 74 L.Ed.2d 39 (1982).

1994Kranda v. Houser-Norborg Medical Corp. (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 1024, 1033 , reh'g denied, 424 N.E.2d *221 1064, trans. denied, appeal dismissed, 459 U.S. 802 , 103 S.Ct. 23 , 74 L.Ed.2d 39 (1982).

1924These considerations constitute an impelling and indisputable reason for holding that either may abandon the contract arbitrarily, and in that event the only rational standard by which to adjust the parties is found in the quantum meruit.” In Hoppes v. Hoppes (1921), 190 Ind. 166 , 129 N. E. 629 , the court refused to grant specific performance of a contract calling for the rendition of personal services of a son and his wife in making a home for the father, the court, in the course of the opinion, saying: “It is obvious that the court would have no means of compelling the appellant and his wi

1924These considerations constitute an impelling and indisputable reason for holding that either may abandon the contract arbitrarily, and in that event the only rational standard by which to adjust the parties is found in the quantum meruit.” In Hoppes v. Hoppes (1921), 190 Ind. 166 , 129 N. E. 629 , the court refused to grant specific performance of a contract calling for the rendition of personal services of a son and his wife in making a home for the father, the court, in the course of the opinion, saying: “It is obvious that the court would have no means of compelling the appellant and his wi

1906Co. v. Wynant (1887), 114 Ind. 525 , 5 Am.

1889The court held that “ The rational presumption, after this lapse of time is, that the former wife was dead. * * The ordinary presumption in favor of the continuance of human life should not, under the facts of the case, outweigh the presumption in favor of the innocence of their cohabitation, and that there was no legal impediment to their marriage.” In the case of Hull v. Rawls, 27 Miss. 471 , Mrs. Rawlsfiled her petition for dower, which was resisted by Hull, the-administrator of James C.