Under the particular circumstances, autopsy report was not prepared for “primary purpose” of future investigation or prosecution, and therefore was not testimonial hearsay.
S. David
City of Beech Grove v. Beloat, No. 49S02-1604-CT-165, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 5, 2016).
“City failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by consciously balancing risks and benefits. Thus, the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the question of discretionary function immunity under the [Indiana Tort Claims Act].”
State v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 49S02-1408-PL-00513, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 22, 2016).
Using the performance standards and indicators provided in the master services agreement, collective breaches were material in light of the agreement as a whole.
Steele-Giri v. Steele, No. 45S04-1512-DR-00682, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 15, 2016).
Because of the highly deferential standard of review afforded to trial courts in family law matters and in contempt matters, although the evidence might have supported motion for custody modification, such modification was not required.
McElfresh v. State, No. 32S01-1511-CR-667, ___ N.E.3d ___ (Ind., March 3, 2016).
Even true statements may be coercive enough to influence a witness and will therefore support conviction for obstruction of justice if they were intended for that purpose.