Trial court acted within its discretion under Evid. R. 804(b)(3) to admit murder victim’s hearsay statement that he shot at defendant the night before as a “statement against interest”; statement was unambiguous and had a great “tendency … to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability,” even though declarant believed he had acted in self-defense.
Supreme
Hewitt v. Westfield Washington School Corp., No. 29S04-1506-PL-00377, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 15, 2015).
The teacher’s termination statute (Ind. Code § 20-28-7.5-1 et seq.) does not apply to termination of an administrator when the underlying teaching contract is not terminated.
AM General LLC v. Armour, No. 71S03-1507-PL-407, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 16, 2015).
When employer offered employee a subordinate promissory note as payment, employer failed to satisfy its obligation under the employment agreement requiring payment in cash or a cash equivalent.
Knighten v. E. Chicago Housing Authority, No. 45S04-1512-CT-686, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 8, 2015).
Genuine issues of material fact on whether employer should be liable under the theory of respondeat superior precluded summary judgment.
Schmidt v. Ind. Insurance Co., No. 22S01-1507-PL-412, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Dec. 2, 2015).
Even if the applicant was truthful and provided complete information regarding the property to the insurance agent, there is no genuine issue of fact regarding the proximate cause of loss because no dwelling fire insurance policy would have been issued on such information.