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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT