Jeffrey Miller, et al. v. Central Indiana Community Foundation - 5/13/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  May 13, 2014 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 49A04-1309-PL-451. Appellants-Plaintiffs Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller (collectively, "Appellants") appeal the trial court's order granting Appellees-Defendants Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc. and Brian Payne's (collectively, "Appellees") motion for summary judgment. In arguing that the trial court erred in granting Appellees' motion for summary judgment, Appellants contend that an issue of material fact remains as to whether (1) Appellees tortiously interfered with Mr. Miller's business relationship with the City of Indianapolis, (2) Appellees' statements were defamatory per se, (3) Appellants' lawsuit against Appellees was meritless, (4) statements made by Appellees were protected by qualified privilege, (5) Appellees were involved in a civil conspiracy to injure the Appellants, (6) Appellees caused intentional infliction of emotional distress to Mr. Miller, (7) Mr. Payne's published statements placed Mr. Miller in a false light, and (8) Mrs. Miller has suffered a loss of consortium because of Appellees' actions. Appellees, for their part, contend that the trial court properly granted their motion for summary judgment.

Back to Events
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