policy behind rule in Indiana

2010We reasoned that the policy behind this rule is "`to prevent a party from building his own case by means of his opponent's financial resources, superior diligence and more aggressive preparation.'" Id. (quoting Reeves, 654 N.E.2d at 875 ).

2010We reasoned that the policy behind this rule is " 'to prevent a party from building his own case by means of his opponent's financial resources, superior diligence and more aggressive preparation.'" Id. (quoting Reeves, 654 N.E.2d at 875 ).

1994Id.

1992While this court has concluded that there is no subject matter limitation on the privilege, Frank v. Trustees of Orange County Hosp. (1988), Ind. App., 530 N.E.2d 135 , the privilege should not be applied where the policy behind the rule is not served, Ray, 582 N.E.2d at 471 (quoting Collins v. Bair (1971), 256 Ind. 230 , 268 N.E.2d 95 ).

1992While this court has concluded that there is no subject matter limitation on the privilege, Frank v. Trustees of Orange County Hosp. (1988), Ind. App., 530 N.E.2d 135 , the privilege should not be applied where the policy behind the rule is not served, Ray, 582 N.E.2d at 471 (quoting Collins v. Bair (1971), 256 Ind. 230 , 268 N.E.2d 95 ).

1992While this court has concluded that there is no subject matter limitation on the privilege, Frank v. Trustees of Orange County Hosp. (1988), Ind. App., 530 N.E.2d 135 , the privilege should not be applied where the policy behind the rule is not served, Ray, 582 N.E.2d at 471 (quoting Collins v. Bair (1971), 256 Ind. 230 , 268 N.E.2d 95 ).

2016Id.

2013Lashley indicates the policy behind the requirement of a signed affidavit in the information, and we note that that policy was upheld here where Smoot, who had viewed the incident on video tape, swore to the incident under penalty of perjury. 745 N.E.2d at 259 .

2010We reasoned that the policy behind this rule is "`to prevent a party from building his own case by means of his opponent's financial resources, superior diligence and more aggressive preparation.'" Id. (quoting Reeves, 654 N.E.2d at 875 ).

2010We reasoned that the policy behind this rule is " 'to prevent a party from building his own case by means of his opponent's financial resources, superior diligence and more aggressive preparation.'" Id. (quoting Reeves, 654 N.E.2d at 875 ).

2001As discussed supra, the purpose of the peer review privilege is to foster an effective review of medical care by permitting the members of the peer review panel to communicate "candidly, objectively, and conscientiously." Terre Haute Reg Hosp., Inc., 524 N.E.2d at 1811 . "[A] privilege should not be 'distorted by application in circumstances where the policy behind the rule is not served.

1996Tioga Pines Living Ctr., Inc., 592 N.E.2d at 1276 .

1995In any event, the policy behind the rule described in Scheetz, 509 N.E.2d at 845 , (that of the finality of judgments) is not advanced by its application in the present case.

1992Coastal Corp. v. Duncan (D.Del., 1980), 86 F.R.D. 514 , *1277 522.

1992The policy behind the rule of Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 , and its progeny, now codified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3), the federal counterpart to our own trial rule, is to protect the integrity of the adversary process, not to protect all recorded opinions, observations and impressions an attorney or his advisors have made in connection with a legal problem.

1992The policy behind the rule of Hickman v. Taylor (1947), 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 , and its progeny, now codified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3), the federal counterpart to our own trial rule, is to protect the integrity of the adversary process, not to protect all recorded opinions, observations and impressions an attorney or his advisors have made in connection with a legal problem.

1992While this court has concluded that there is no subject matter limitation on the privilege, Frank v. Trustees of Orange County Hosp. (1988), Ind. App., 530 N.E.2d 135 , the privilege should not be applied where the policy behind the rule is not served, Ray, 582 N.E.2d at 471 (quoting Collins v. Bair (1971), 256 Ind. 230 , 268 N.E.2d 95 ).

1977Co. v. Wiler (1884), 100 Ind. 92 ; Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass'n. v. Beck (1881), 77 Ind. 203 , the policy behind the waiver rule is much more difficult to comprehend.

1977Co. v. Wiler, (1884) 100 Ind. 92 ; Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass’n. v. Beck, (1881) 77 Ind. 203 , the policy behind the waiver rule is much more difficult to comprehend.

1977Co. v. Wiler (1884), 100 Ind. 92 ; Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass'n. v. Beck (1881), 77 Ind. 203 , the policy behind the waiver rule is much more difficult to comprehend.

1977Co. v. Wiler, (1884) 100 Ind. 92 ; Masonic Mutual Benefit Ass’n. v. Beck, (1881) 77 Ind. 203 , the policy behind the waiver rule is much more difficult to comprehend.

1958In Griffiths v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 555 , 72 N. E. 563 , it is said, at p. 559: “We think that the rule concerning the corpus delicti is largely one of caution, and that where the corroborating circumstances so far supplement the confession as to make it-clear that the crime charged was committed, a conviction should not be overthrown for the want of evidence.” See Annotations 45 A. L.

1958In Griffiths v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 555 , 72 N. E. 563 , it is said, at p. 559: “We think that the rule concerning the corpus delicti is largely one of caution, and that where the corroborating circumstances so far supplement the confession as to make it-clear that the crime charged was committed, a conviction should not be overthrown for the want of evidence.” See Annotations 45 A. L.