James A. Emmert

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.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether Indiana's 1957 statute on standard time and daylight saving time amended or repealed by implication a 1945 law that set specific hours during which the sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited, using Central Standard Time.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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

electionsprocedure

This case involved a dispute over title to a triangular piece of land purchased by the appellees, which the State claimed as a highway right-of-way based on an unrecorded 1939 grant from prior owners. The trial court enjoined the State and its highway department from trespassing or asserting title, but on appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to the State itself while affirming it otherwise. The court held that a 1939 statute requiring recording of state highway rights-of-way protects bona fide purchasers without actual or constructive notice from unrecorded grants, that the statute is constitutional, and that while the State cannot be directly enjoined due to sovereign immunity, its officers can be held liable for torts like trespass.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an appeal by Warren from his conviction for sodomy, where he argued that the court erred in allowing the prosecutrix to testify without first requiring a psychiatric examination of her credibility. The court noted that the prior precedent requiring such examinations, Burton v. State, had been overruled by Wedmore v. State, eliminating any requirement for psychiatric evidence before testimony in sex offense cases. Even under the old rule, the conviction was upheld because the prosecutrix's testimony was corroborated by the defendant's written confession, which the trial court found valid. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of guilt and the sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by General Telephone Company of Indiana from a trial court judgment upholding an order of the Public Service Commission of Indiana. The Commission had granted a certificate of territorial authority to Clay County Rural Telephone Co-Operative for telephone service in the Cloverdale, Putnamville, and Eminence exchange areas, conditioned on obtaining federal financing, while denying a joint petition by General and Indiana Midland Telephone Corporation for approval of a sale of Midland's assets and issuance of a territorial certificate to General. The Supreme Court of Indiana held that a pending action to review an earlier Commission order declaring the territory 'open' did not suspend the Commission's jurisdiction to grant the certificate, that appeals do not vacate such orders, and that relevant statutes authorized the Commission to act on the sale petition without requiring a merger or other specific procedures. The court therefore denied rehearing and upheld the Commission's decisions under the applicable public utility statutes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a personal injury claim by plaintiff Budkiewicz against the defendant railway company after his car collided at night with a black tank car left standing on an unlit grade crossing of Indiana Highway 149. The complaint alleged the railway created an extra-hazardous deceptive appearance of an open road by placing the car there without warnings, in violation of a statutory duty under Section 10-3904 not to block public highways and common-law negligence. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the plaintiff declined to amend, and judgment was entered for the defendant; the Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the sufficiency of the pleading under rules requiring liberal construction absent a motion for specificity. The court held the complaint insufficient because it did not adequately allege a non-momentary blocking of the highway or other actionable breach of duty proximately causing the injury, relying on precedents distinguishing momentary stops from statutory violations and requiring plaintiffs to plead facts showing they fall outside exceptions to general rules.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case was an appeal from a conviction for automobile banditry, where the defendant was found guilty after breaking into a tavern at night using tools taken from his parked car nearby, and sentenced to 10 years in prison; he had also raised an insanity defense. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence. It held that the evidence, including the defendant's confession, possession of the car keys, and the car's location, was sufficient for the jury to find he intended to use the vehicle to escape after committing the burglary. The state also carried its burden to prove the defendant's sanity through testimony from physicians and lay witnesses, and the trial court did not err in refusing certain jury instructions or in other rulings.

criminal law

The case involved a dispute over transfers of real estate deeds and bank/savings accounts made by an 82-year-old decedent to his daughter shortly before his death, with the administrator and two sons seeking to recover the assets for the estate. The complaint alleged fraud and undue influence by the daughter, and a jury found that such influence had occurred on both the personal property and real estate claims. The trial court entered judgment setting aside the transfers and deeds, vesting title in the estate and appointing a commissioner to reconvey the property. On appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the court affirmed, holding that ample evidence supported the findings including the decedent's advanced age, poor living conditions, diminished mental capacity, lack of consideration for the transfers, and statements indicating coercion by the daughter.

propertyfamily law

The case involved property owners who sought a permit from the Indiana State Highway Department to build a driveway access from their land to State Road No. 100 for a filling station, which the Department denied after a hearing because it had designated the road as a limited-access facility under the 1945 Limited Access Facility Highways Act. The owners filed an action under the 1947 Administrative Adjudication Act to review the denial, but the trial court rejected their claim, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the review proceeding was not available to challenge the permit denial or to litigate access rights, as the Limited Access Act expressly authorizes the Department to regulate or prohibit access to such highways and preserves constitutional remedies through eminent domain proceedings under the 1905 Eminent Domain Act for any resulting damages. It distinguished prior cases involving unauthorized takings and noted that no existing business access right was being destroyed.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a New Jersey oil company doing business in Indiana that sought a refund of state gross income taxes paid under protest on amounts it collected from wholesale buyers to cover federal excise taxes on gasoline and lubricating oils. The company had itemized those federal taxes separately on its invoices as part of the total sales price. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment against the company, holding that the collected federal excise taxes constituted part of the company's gross receipts subject to the state tax. The court reasoned that the federal tax was imposed directly on the producer-seller, who passed it on to buyers as a component of the sales price, and that state taxation of such amounts did not violate federal law or constitutional principles, distinguishing contrary out-of-state precedents and citing U.S. Supreme Court authority on non-discriminatory state taxes affecting federal contractors.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a property owner in the Town of Homecroft who operated a nonconforming grocery store on land zoned exclusively for residential use (Class U1) and petitioned the local zoning board for a variance to build a filling station, citing declining business, an unsuitable small lot, and no viable buyers for residential or grocery use. The board denied the variance, but the trial court reversed and directed issuance of a building permit. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the ordinance as applied was unconstitutional because it deprived the owner of any reasonable use of the property. The court reasoned that the restrictions went beyond valid regulation and amounted to a taking without compensation, supported by uncontradicted evidence of hardship and lack of impact on neighboring properties.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case was an appeal from a guilty plea to charges of forging and uttering a forged check worth $24.60, resulting in a fine and a prison term of two to fourteen years under the 1905 forgery statute. The defendant argued that the Fraudulent Check Act of 1927 should instead govern the offense of uttering a forged check. The court reasoned that the 1927 Act applies only when a real maker or drawer issues a check knowing there are insufficient funds, whereas a forged instrument with a nonexistent maker constitutes forgery under the earlier statute, which provides for a more severe penalty. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

criminal law

This case is an appeal from a robbery conviction in Indiana state court, where the defendants were found guilty after a bench trial and sentenced to prison terms of 10 to 25 years. The court ruled that it was reversible error to admit testimony about accusatory statements made to a witness in the defendants' presence while they were in custody, as their silence could not be treated as an admission. The court also addressed the admission of related testimony concerning a gun and rejected the state's argument that such evidence was harmless in a non-jury trial. It further clarified that filing a statutory notice of alibi is merely a condition for introducing alibi evidence and does not amount to impeachment. The judgment was reversed with a new trial ordered.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a dispute over title to 540 acres of land in Newton County, Indiana, where plaintiffs sought to quiet an equitable title and obtain specific performance based on an alleged oral contract to purchase from defendant Degymas after making a down payment and taking possession, while defendants Molsons claimed superior rights through an assignment of a prior written purchase contract from Degymas. The jury returned a general verdict for the plaintiffs, but its answers to four interrogatories indicated that the Molsons held the equitable ownership interest. The trial court entered judgment for the Molsons notwithstanding the general verdict, finding the interrogatory answers irreconcilable with it. On appeal, the court affirmed, applying the rule that special findings control the general verdict when they cannot be reconciled under any state of facts provable under the issues.

propertyprocedure

The Justice of the Peace Association of Indiana petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to authorize it to prepare and administer examinations for prospective justices of the peace under a 1957 statute that added new eligibility requirements, including passage of a court-approved exam, beyond those in the state constitution. The court denied the petition and held the relevant portion of the statute unconstitutional. Justices of the peace are constitutional officers under Article 7, Section 14, whose qualifications are set by the constitution; the legislature therefore lacks authority to impose additional requirements. The court further noted that the statute provided no standards, funding, or designation of examiners for any such examination, distinguishing it from the court's inherent authority over admission to the bar.

electionsprocedure

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of an action seeking to recover social security benefits owed to a person of unsound mind. The court addressed whether the appeal was properly perfected within the required timeframe under appellate rules. The appeal was filed more than ninety days after the judgment of dismissal, and a motion for new trial did not extend the deadline because no trial had occurred, making the motion a nullity. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.

procedurefederal power