ILNews

Justices grant transfer in 1 civil case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted a case asking whether a construction subcontractor on a public school project can be held liable for attorney fees under the state’s public records access laws applying to public agencies.

At its private conference last week, the justices considered a total of 24 cases. View the full transfer disposition list.

The court granted transfer in one case, Shepard Properties Co. d/b/a Shepco Commercial Finishes v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 91, No. 49A04-1010-PL-676. In June, the Court of Appeals reversed a lower judge’s denial of Shepco’s motion to correct error challenging an order that awarded attorney fees to the painters union as the prevailing party in an action brought under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act. The appellate judges found the trial court erroneously imposed joint and several liabilities for statutory attorney fees under the APRA, as there’s no provision for the assessment of attorney fees against a private party in the event of improper nondisclosure under the act.

The justices dismissed Shonk Electric v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, No. 55A05-1009-CC-554, by a unanimous vote and denied transfer in 22 other suits. One of those included Murat Temple Association v. Live Nation Worldwide and Old National Bancorp, No. 49A02-1008-PL-952, in which the Court of Appeals in August affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Murat’s claim that the event promoter violated the terms of its lease agreement.


 

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
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