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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT