This case involved an eminent domain action by a public utility company to acquire an easement across the Darlings' 72-acre property in Lake County, Indiana, for installing a 16-inch high-pressure natural gas pipeline. Appraisers initially awarded $2,000 total ($800 for the easement and $1,200 for damages to the residence), but a jury returned a $7,000 verdict plus interest after viewing the property and hearing evidence about the pipeline's proximity to buildings and risks of leaks or explosions. The utility appealed, claiming errors in the admission of testimony on fire and explosion hazards and in the refusal of certain jury instructions. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that judicial notice could be taken of natural gas's flammability and that evidence of potential dangers (including underground leaks) was admissible because it could reduce the market value of the remaining land, even without an actual incident on the property. The court also noted that challenges to refused instructions could not be reviewed because not all given instructions were included in the appellate brief.
This case involved a dispute over whether Indiana's 1957 statute on standard time and daylight saving time amended or repealed by implication a 1945 law that set specific hours during which the sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited, using Central Standard Time. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed a declaratory judgment holding that the 1957 Act left the 1945 provisions intact. The court reasoned that specific statutory rules on a narrow subject control over later general statutes addressing the same topic unless the two are irreconcilably inconsistent, and here the 1957 Act's broad language on time did not override the detailed 1945 restrictions on alcohol sales.
This case involved an appeal from a conviction for felonious possession of a narcotic drug (heroin) after police officers arrested the defendant for gambling, searched him incident to the arrest, and found capsules later confirmed to contain heroin. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the officers validly arrested the defendant for a misdemeanor committed in their presence based on observations through a door and that the subsequent search was lawful. It further ruled that the charging affidavit sufficiently stated the offense by tracking the language of the Indiana Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, that the defendant lacked standing to challenge unrelated provisions of the statute, and that there was no error in denying his pretrial motion for independent chemical testing of the evidence or his constitutional challenge under the Supremacy Clause. The court rejected arguments that the state narcotics law conflicted with federal legislation due to waiver and failure to properly present the claim.
The case involved an appeal by Neal Marcum from his conviction for a second offense of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, for which he received a sentence of nine months imprisonment and a $100 fine. The court affirmed the judgment after overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, ruling that the affidavit sufficiently alleged a prior conviction because a plea of guilty qualifies as a conviction under the relevant statute. It also overruled the motion for a new trial, finding the evidence adequate to identify the appellant as the same person previously convicted and determining that trial objections to evidence lacked sufficient specificity to raise reversible error.
This case was an appeal from a conviction for unlawful possession of morphine, where the appellant received a fine and a 180-day sentence after police found morphine in a duffel bag in the trunk of a car in which he was sitting. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict. The core reasoning was that the appellant had been lawfully arrested for public intoxication, the subsequent search of the car was valid as incident to that arrest (even though not instantaneous), and the jury could reasonably infer possession from the appellant's connection to the locked vehicle and its contents.
This case was an original action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the St. Joseph Circuit Court from proceeding with a statutory recount of all Democratic primary votes cast for the sheriff nomination in the May 1958 election. The relator, who had been certified as the nominee by the board of canvassers, argued that recount provisions do not apply to primaries and that the petition failed to meet the mandatory jurisdictional allegations under the Election Code. The court decided that the recount provisions do apply to primaries because the Election Code defines "election" to include primaries and that the petition satisfied the statutory requirements, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the circuit court. It further rejected the constitutional challenge, noting that post-recount contest remedies enacted by the legislature provide adequate relief. The petition for prohibition was denied and the temporary writ vacated.