Legal Opinion

Smith v. Crouse-Hinds Co.

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1979No. 3-575A89PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

2DissentGivan, Chief Justice

I dissent to the denial of the petition to transfer in this cause for the reason that the Court of Appeals has overlooked the crucial evidentiary rule of relevancy. I agree with the statement of the Court of Appeals that when physical evidence connected to the. issues in the case is offered, the “authenticity of the exhibit must be established,” normally by way of “prefatory evidence identifying the exhibit as the object involved in the incident.” Smith v. Crouse-Hinds Co. (1978) Ind.App., 373 N.E.2d 923, 926.

However, in addition to showing that the object was involved…

3Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. Crouse-Hinds Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  2. Storckman v. KellerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1968

4Cited by5 opinions

  1. Clouse v. FielderIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Senco Products, Inc. v. RileyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. City of Indianapolis v. SwansonIndiana Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Osborne v. WengerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Osborne v. WengerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API