Legal Opinion · Dissent

Matusky v. Sheffield Square Apartments

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided August 25, 1994No. 22A04-9309-CV-333Published

1DissentChezem, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, as I believe the modified residuum rule should apply to actions in small claims courts.

In this state, a modified residuum rule applies to actions before administrative agencies. As stated by our supreme court in C.T.S. Corp. v. Schoulton (1979), 270 Ind. 34, 39, 383 N.E.2d 293, 296:

Indiana courts have unerringly applied a modified version of the Residuum Rule. It is improper (albeit not reversible error) for the Industrial Board to admit incompetent hearsay and an award must be supported by some competent evidence presented at the hearing.

a *…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Boostrom v. BachIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  2. C.T.S. Corp. v. SchoultonIndiana Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Boostrom v. BachIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Chasteen v. SmithIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Harpe v. BeuoyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API