Evidence which is “testimonial” under the Crawford Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause analysis is admissible under the “open the door” principle, but only as long as the waiver of confrontation entailed in “opening the door” is “clear and intentional.”
Krampen v. Krampen, No. 45A05-1212-DR-628, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 25, 2013).
The trial court erred in concluding that mother misused child support payments she received and ordering an accounting of future child support payments
Kesling v. Hubler Nissan, Inc., No. 49S02-1302-CT-89, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind., Oct. 29, 2013).
“An auto dealership’s advertisement of an inexpensive used car as a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price,” is textbook puffery—not actionable as deception or fraud, because a reasonable buyer could not take it as a warranty about the car’s performance or safety characteristics. But when the dealer has inspected the car and should know it has serious problems, answering a buyer’s question about why it idled roughly by claiming that it “would just need a tune-up” may be actionable as fraud.”
In re I.P, No. 49A02-1303-JT-283, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 29, 2013).
It did not violate the trial rules or father’s right to due process when one magistrate resigned and a different magistrate that was not present at the hearing reported factual findings and conclusions to the judge to issue the subsequent recommended order terminating father’s parental.
Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, No. 64A04-1211-PL-594, __ N.E.2d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 29, 2013).
Although the trial court issued a protective order for deposition materials, those materials were not automatically confidential under Administrative Rule 9(G)(1)(c).