Forfeiture order was reversed when the trial court inferred from defendant’s presence in the vehicle that he was a co-conspirator with the other passengers for dealing in narcotics when there was no additional evidence of a nexus between defendant’s forfeited money and dealing in narcotics.
Civil
Sims v. Pappas, No. 45S03-1701-CT-26, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 11, 2017).
Prior alcohol-related driving convictions can be introduced into evidence for the issue of punitive damages and the remoteness of a prior offense does not affect the admissibility of the evidence.
Oaks v. Chamberlain, No. 92A04-1609-CC-2041, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 11, 2017).
In a medical malpractice case, expert’s testimony about his personal practices is relevant and admissible for the purpose of impeaching his testimony about the standard of care.
Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., Inc., No. 54S01-1610-CT-546, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 4, 2017).
Unauthorized immigrants can pursue claims for decreased earning capacity damages. Unauthorized immigration status is admissible only if the evidence’s proponent shows by a preponderance of evidence that the plaintiff will be deported.
L.G. v. S.L., No. 29A04-1607-AD-1756, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 4, 2017).
There was an appearance of impropriety when the attorney for one side wrote a letter of recommendation for the trial court judge while the case was pending; trial court judge should have recused himself from the proceedings.