Trial court abused its discretion in permitting an expert witness to read verbatim into evidence an opinion set forth in an email to the expert witness because it merely served as an improper vehicle to present the otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence.
Civil
Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc., No. 18S-CT-451, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., June 17, 2019).
Component-part manufacturers have no duty under the IPLA to install safety features when it is foreseeable that the final manufacturer will put the component to different uses depending on how it integrates the component into the final product.
Zartman v. Zartman, No. 18A-PL-1071, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2019).
When the content of a document is at issue in the context of a motion for summary judgment, it is for the court to decide based on the parties’ designated evidence.
Tutino v. Rohr-Indy Motors Inc., No. 18A-CT-2435, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 18, 2019).
Because the issues of fact were not material to the resolution of the case summary judgment was appropriate.
In re Name Change of M.E.B., No. 19A-MI-118, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., June 21, 2019).
AR 9 does not require that a transgender person requesting a name change provide evidence of violence occurring to that person because of gender identity or of violence being perpetrated against an Indiana resident who identifies as transgender.