abstract analysis in Indiana

1915Stewart v. English [1855], 6 Ind. 176 ; Hunt v. Elliott [1881], 80 Ind. 245 [ 41 Am.

1889Stewart v. English, 6 Ind. 176; Hunt v. Elliott, 80 Ind. 245 .

1915Stewart v. English [1855], 6 Ind. 176 ; Hunt v. Elliott [1881], 80 Ind. 245 [ 41 Am.

1889Stewart v. English, 6 Ind. 176; Hunt v. Elliott, 80 Ind. 245 .

1984“One cannot claim error for an abstract violation of a constitutional right where he shows no injury.” Haber-korn, 251 Ind. at 294 , 241 N.E.2d at 69 .

1984“One cannot claim error for an abstract violation of a constitutional right where he shows no injury.” Haber-korn, 251 Ind. at 294 , 241 N.E.2d at 69 .

1981The abstract analysis of the statutes in question required under the Blockburger test appears to have been modified by the Court in Albernaz v. United States (1981), - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 ; Illinois v. Vitale (1980), 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 , and Whalen v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 .

1981The abstract analysis of the statutes in question required under the Blockburger test appears to have been modified by the Court in Albernaz v. United States (1981), - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 ; Illinois v. Vitale (1980), 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 , and Whalen v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 .

1981The abstract analysis of the statutes in question required under the Blockburger test appears to have been modified by the Court in Albernaz v. United States (1981), - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 ; Illinois v. Vitale (1980), 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 , and Whalen v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 .

1981The abstract analysis of the statutes in question required under the Blockburger test appears to have been modified by the Court in Albernaz v. United States (1981), - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 ; Illinois v. Vitale (1980), 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 , and Whalen v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 .

1981The abstract analysis of the statutes in question required under the Blockburger test appears to have been modified by the Court in Albernaz v. United States (1981), - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 ; Illinois v. Vitale (1980), 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 , and Whalen v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 .

1981The abstract analysis of the statutes in question required under the Blockburger test appears to have been modified by the Court in Albernaz v. United States (1981), - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 ; Illinois v. Vitale (1980), 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 , and Whalen v. United States (1980), 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 .

1971We find no prejudicial error on the grounds urged by the appellant, this Court has previously stated that: “One cannot claim error for an abstract violation of a constitutional right where he shows no injury.” Layton v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 205 , 240 N. E. 2d 489, 494 .

1971We find no prejudicial error on the grounds urged by the appellant, this Court has previously stated that: “One cannot claim error for an abstract violation of a constitutional right where he shows no injury.” Layton v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 205 , 240 N. E. 2d 489, 494 .

1952I might pay Joe and Louise a couple of hundred dollars for taking care of my mother but other than that, if there is anything left, I am going to keep itN “It is well settled, as an abstract rule of law, that fraud, as a matter of fact, is never presumed; it must be clearly proved, either directly or circumstantially, by the party making the charge, It is quite true that fraud is a question of fact for the jury, and that it may be inferred from circumstances and need not be proved by direct or positive evidence.” Wallace v. Mattice (1889), 118 Ind. 59 , 20 N. E. 497 .

1952I might pay Joe and Louise a couple of hundred dollars for taking care of my mother but other than that, if there is anything left, I am going to keep itN “It is well settled, as an abstract rule of law, that fraud, as a matter of fact, is never presumed; it must be clearly proved, either directly or circumstantially, by the party making the charge, It is quite true that fraud is a question of fact for the jury, and that it may be inferred from circumstances and need not be proved by direct or positive evidence.” Wallace v. Mattice (1889), 118 Ind. 59 , 20 N. E. 497 .

1943In the early case of Hayes *534 et al. v. West et al. (1871), 37 Ind. 21 , it was held that such statements of the testator were admissible to prove insanity, but not to prove undue influence, although it is conceded that some of the American cases incline to the view that they are admissible to prove the fact of fraud or undue influence.

1935Hemminger (1870), *149 34 Ind. 360 ; and Kintner v. State ex rel Ripperdan (1873), 45 Ind. 175 . .We agree with said statement as an abstract principle of law, but that principle is not applicable as a test of said instruction, because said instruction does not assume that the relatrix could “give no particular reason why any one of the acts was the one in which the child was begotten.” By that instruction the court told the jury, in effect, that if they found that other persons, besides appellant, had intercourse with the relatrix at about the time the child was begotten, such finding would n

1935Hemminger (1870), *149 34 Ind. 360 ; and Kintner v. State ex rel Ripperdan (1873), 45 Ind. 175 . .We agree with said statement as an abstract principle of law, but that principle is not applicable as a test of said instruction, because said instruction does not assume that the relatrix could “give no particular reason why any one of the acts was the one in which the child was begotten.” By that instruction the court told the jury, in effect, that if they found that other persons, besides appellant, had intercourse with the relatrix at about the time the child was begotten, such finding would n

1917Appellant predicates error on the action of the court in giving instruction No. 12, at the request of appellee, which is as follows: “One who does an act under an impulse or under a belief created by a sudden danger attributable to another’s negligence,-is not to be regarded as guilty of contributory fault, even though the act would be regarded as a negligent one if performed under circumstances not indicating sudden peril.” The abstract rule embodied in this instruction has been expressly approved in the cases of Clarke v. Pennsylvania Co. (1892), 132 Ind. 199 , 31 N. E. 808 ,17 L.

1917Appellant predicates error on the action of the court in giving instruction No. 12, at the request of appellee, which is as follows: “One who does an act under an impulse or under a belief created by a sudden danger attributable to another’s negligence,-is not to be regarded as guilty of contributory fault, even though the act would be regarded as a negligent one if performed under circumstances not indicating sudden peril.” The abstract rule embodied in this instruction has been expressly approved in the cases of Clarke v. Pennsylvania Co. (1892), 132 Ind. 199 , 31 N. E. 808 ,17 L.

1886The case of Jennings v. Kee, 5 Ind. 257 , which announces an abstract principle akin to that contained in the instruction,, is altogether different in its facts.