community standard in Indiana

2019Id. [25] The State's appeal to a community standard notwithstanding, the State did not argue the jury should ignore the evidence; rather, the State outlined the evidence it had presented to demonstrate Gridley was guilty of the charges.

1991Huffman v. United States (1971) D.C.App., *366 470 F.2d 386 , reh. granted upon unrelated issues, 502 F.2d 419 .

1991Huffman v. United States (1971) D.C.App., 470 F.2d 886 , reh. granted upon unrelated issues, 502 F.2d 419 .

1991Huffman v. United States (1971) D.C.App., *366 470 F.2d 386 , reh. granted upon unrelated issues, 502 F.2d 419 .

1990Appellant argues the absence from the venire of high school and college students denied him a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 .

1990Appellant argues the absence from the venire of high school and college students denied him a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 .

1990Noting that student status is not listed under Ind.Code § 35-87-1-5 as a reason for dismissal of a potential juror, appellant also argues this Court held in Jones v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1228 , that it was error for the trial court to excuse a prospective juror who was a student because he needed to prepare for an examination.

1990Noting that student status is not listed under Ind. Code § 35-37-1-5 as a reason for dismissal of a potential juror, appellant also argues this Court held in Jones v. State (1989), Ind., 540 N.E.2d 1228 , that it was error for the trial court to excuse a prospective juror *780 who was a student because he needed to prepare for an examination.

1987(Chamness v. Odum (1979), 80 Ill.App.3d 98 , 35 Ill.Dec. 404 , 399 N.E.2d 238 .) However, where it is determined that only one uniform standard of care for treatment exists, the national standard and the community standard may be synonymous.

1987(Chamness v. Odum (1979), 80 Ill.App.3d 98 , 35 Ill.Dec. 404 , 399 N.E.2d 238 .) However, where it is determined that only one uniform standard of care for treatment exists, the national standard and the community standard may be synonymous.

1987(Hunter v. Sukkar (1982), 111 Ill.App.3d 169 , 66 Ill.Dec. 848 , 443 N.E.2d 774 .) Further, as the supreme court recently recognized, a doctor will not necessarily be disqualified as an expert even if he is unfamiliar with the practices of a particular community as long as there are certain minimum standards of care uniform throughout the country for the particular practice.

1987(Hunter v. Sukkar (1982), 111 Ill.App.3d 169 , 66 Ill.Dec. 848 , 443 N.E.2d 774 .) Further, as the supreme court recently recognized, a doctor will not necessarily be disqualified as an expert even if he is unfamiliar with the practices of a particular community as long as there are certain minimum standards of care uniform throughout the country for the particular practice.

1984This same issue was addressed in Sedelbauer, supra, where Chief Justice Givan held that: “[tjhis question raises a specious argument which appellant attempts to support by citing the case of Miller v. California, (1973) 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 . [[Image here]] He cites this language for the proposition that the material should be tolerated by the community rather than accepted by the community.

1984This same issue was addressed in Sedelbauer, supra, where Chief Justice Givan held that: “[tjhis question raises a specious argument which appellant attempts to support by citing the case of Miller v. California, (1973) 413 U.S. 15 , 93 S.Ct. 2607 , 37 L.Ed.2d 419 . [[Image here]] He cites this language for the proposition that the material should be tolerated by the community rather than accepted by the community.

1894Speaking of this system and the proper construe tion of the constitution in relation to it, this court said, in Robinson v. Schenck, supra: “There can be no doubt as to the purpose of our people regarding common schools; both in the constitution of 1816 and in that of 1851 are written provisions clearly expressing the purpose of the people to build up a great and beneficent system in which tuition shall ‘be without charge and equally open to all.’ The prime object sought is the creation of a system that shall be efficient and enduring.