ILNews

DTCI: Indiana Civil Litigation Review

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The next issue of the Indiana Civil Litigation Review will be on members’ desks in a few weeks. Members and subscribers can anticipate another issue full of valuable information and analyses by leaders of Indiana’s defense bar. Some of the articles that will appear in this issue include

The Sufficient Rational Basis Test – A “Grand Unified Theory” of Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Matthew D. Bruno

Worker’s Compensation: Abrogation of Positional Risk Doctrine, Christopher Cross

Outage: Limitations on Use of National Codes and Standards in Actions against Electric Utilities, Thomas J. Jarzyniecki & Nicholas W. Levi

The Frivolous Claim: Will You Know It When You See It?, Belinda Rose Johnson- Hurtado

Clarian Health v. Wagler: Update, Katherine G. Karres

No Warning … So What? – The Indiana Supreme Court’s Ruling in Kovach v. Caligor Midwest and Proximate Cause Given the Read-and-Heed Presumption in Failure-to-Warn Cases, Melanie D. Margolin & Lucy R. Dollens

Rescission of Settlement Agreements and “Unsettling” Failures to Disclose Insurance Coverage, Ted W. Nolting

The Expertise of Medical Experts: Assessing Medical Education and Specialization When Experts Opine Across Specialties, Kevin C. Rasp

Environmental Insurance Coverage Update, Casey R. Stafford

The Indiana Civil Litigation Review welcomes submissions from DTCI members and others on topics of interest to the Indiana defense bar. Please write Molly McClellan, managing editor, if you have a topic you would like the board of editors to consider. MMcClellan@dtci.org.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT