Statements automatically generated by a machine are not hearsay. State law conditions the admissibility of breath test results on the strict compliance with rigorous Department of Toxicology unless the test is administered to the driver of a commercial vehicle cited under Ind. Code § 9-24-6.1-6. While demonstrating compliance with the Code may not be strictly necessary, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the breath test administered was reliable.
Civil
H&S Financial, Inc. v. Parnell, No. 23A-SC-154, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
The holder of an equitable lien may not conduct proceedings supplemental unless it has proved that it is “a plaintiff owning the described judgment against the defendant,” T.R. 69(E), to conduct proceedings.
AgReliant Genetics, LLC v. Gary Hamstra Farms, Inc., No. 22A-CC-1827, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 12, 2023).
Trial court properly considered the prior course of dealing between the parties in determining whether the plaintiffs established the elements of promissory estoppel.
Red Lobster Restaurants LLC v. Progressive Flooring Svcs., Inc., No. 22A-CT-2221, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 6, 2023).
Because plaintiff sustained a direct injury, plaintiff had standing to sue in her own name when she had a bankruptcy pending.
Kansal v. Krieter, 22A-CT-2646, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 10, 2023).
Sexual misconduct claims against healthcare providers are not subject to the Medical Malpractice Act, but in a case where the doctor and the patient agree as to the touching that occurred but disagree as to the purpose of the touching, application of the Medical Malpractice Act and presentation to a medical-review panel might be appropriate.