# Lee v. Schroeder

> Indiana Court of Appeals · October 17, 1988 · 529 N.E.2d 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713469

## Case

- **Full name:** Louise LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda L. SCHROEDER, as Co-Executrix of the Estate of Raymond C. Schwagmeier, Deceased; Gaberella Parker, as Co-Executrix of the Estate of Raymond C. Schwagmeier, Deceased; Linda L. Schroeder, Richard P. Schroeder, Robert Schwagmeier, Ruth Weber, and Richard Shaddy, Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 17, 1988
- **Citations:** 529 N.E.2d 349; 1988 Ind. App. LEXIS 796; 1988 WL 109361
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ratliff
- **Judges:** Neal, Ratliff, Shields
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713469

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a court may disregard an affidavit on its own motion when it does not meet the requirements of Trial Rule 56(E)
- recognizing an exception regarding a testator’s soundness of mind

## Opinion text

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring.
An expert may base his opinion on hearsay or otherwise inadmissible evidence. However, he may testify only as to the opinion derived from such evidence and may not be the conduit for placing the hearsay or inadmissible evidence into the record. Thus, those portions of Dr. Davis's affidavit which re-stated the matters reported in the medical records were inadmissible and could not be considered in ruling upon the motion for summary judgment. However, the doctor's opinion was admissible, and, if relevant to the issues could have been considered. The problem is that the doctor's opinion was no opinion at all upon any issue. He merely stated an opinion that the testator was susceptible to undue influence. All persons are susceptible. The question is whether the decedent was in fact unduly influenced. Dr. Davis's opinion does not address that issue. The non-movants failed in their burden to demonstrate a genuine issue and summary judgment appropriately was granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713469. Public record. Not legal advice.