The trial court properly appointed a special master pursuant to Indiana Commercial Court Rule 5 and T.R. 70 to take the necessary steps to satisfy a party’s contractual obligations.
Civil
Garrett v. Nissan of Lafayette, LLC, No. 22A-CT-2583, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2023).
Trial court properly denied motion to deem requests for admission as admitted. The purpose of Trial Rule 36 is to allow parties to stipulate matters which are not seriously in dispute, such as the authenticity of an exhibit.
In re Civil Commitment of G.H., No. 23A-MH-490, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Aug. 4, 2023).
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.
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.