Trial court did not have the proof necessary to impose a special condition on an involuntary commitment to outpatient therapy when there was no reasonable relationship between the special condition and respondent’s treatment and safety or that of the general public.
Civil
Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Gardner, No. 22S-CT-381, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., July 19, 2023).
A party must establish standing at each stage of litigation. It is not enough for a claimant to establish injury in its pleadings; it must do so at each successive stage of the litigation.
Priest v. State, No. 22A-MI-2845, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., July 20, 2023).
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.
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.