ILNews

High court to hear 2 arguments Thursday

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments on two cases Thursday to determine whether a health services provider is entitled to interest on payment owed for services and if a city had missed the statute of limitations to bring contamination-related claims against a company.

At 9 a.m., the high court will hear arguments on Cooper Industries, LLC, et al. v. City of South Bend and The South Bend Redevelopment Commission, No. 49A04-0511-CV-637, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the Marion Superior Court's decision of partial summary judgment allowing the city of South Bend and its redevelopment commission to pursue contamination-related claims against Cooper Industries on property the city acquired within six years before filing the lawsuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision because it found South Bend had known of the contamination before March 19, 1997, which was six years before the city filed the complaint, and so the statute of limitations had passed.

At 9:45 a.m., arguments will begin in Christopher R. Brown, DDS., Inc. v. Decatur County Memorial Hospital, No. 93A02-0703-EX-236. Brown had appealed the Full Worker's Compensation Board's denial of prejudgment interest on the outstanding balance owed to him as a result of medical services he provided. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, ruling that neither the Worker's Compensation Act nor caselaw mandates the payment of interest to a health service provider on an outstanding balance.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT