ILNews

COA to hear arguments at Indy cathedral

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Indianapolis tomorrow, but not in their usual courtroom venue. The appellate court will be at the Scottish Rite Cathedral to hear arguments in Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley-Thoraco-Vascular Corporation vs. Dr. James W. Blatchford, III & Dr. Eve G. Cieutat, No. 84A01-0801-CV-30.

The case involves the enforceability of a covenant not-to-compete in an employment agreement between Drs. James Blatchford III and Eve Cieutat and the Mercho-Roushdi-Shoemaker-Dilley-Thoraco-Vascular Corporation, which hired the doctors to provide surgical services.

At issue is whether the covenant that prohibits the doctors from practicing within a 50-mile radius of Terre Haute for three years after the termination of their employment is unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The doctors filed a suit against the corporation; the company filed a counterclaim the doctors were practicing in violation of the non-compete covenants. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the doctors on the company's counterclaim.

The arguments begin at noon Nov. 4 in the First Floor South Lounge of the cathedral, 650 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT