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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT