Civil case

Justices rule in favor of cup manufacturers

September 8, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The manufacturer defendants in a suit claiming defects in their measuring cup caused the death of a 9-year-old boy are entitled to summary judgment, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed today.
More

Judges differ on application of high court ruling

September 8, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
An Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues today in a ruling involving the ownership of certain joint accounts because he believed an Indiana Supreme Court decision was binding in the case.
More

Judges question earlier Circuit holding

September 4, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
A decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals about child pornography convictions turned into an examination of whether a standard adopted by the Circuit Court regarding allocution should remain the law of the Circuit.
More

Court rules on adult-business ordinance

September 4, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Six years after the city of Indianapolis amended its adult-business ordinances, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the District Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the restricted hours in the new ordinance violate the businesses' constitutional rights.
More

Court rules on transfer to California court

September 3, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decision to relinquish its jurisdiction over child support matters to a California trial court. In its opinion, the high court examined the interplay between the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.
More

Judge: Officer is entitled to qualified immunity

September 3, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
A federal judge ruled in favor of a defendant police officer in a suit alleging he conducted a warrantless and unreasonable search of a home to find a gun mentioned in a 911 call.
More

High court rules on post-judgment interest

September 2, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a case in order to clarify precedents on post-judgment interest in dissolution cases. The high court held that the dissolution statutes give a court the option to either assess interest or not in the course of fashioning a just division of assets.
More

Amended ordinance doesn't apply to travel plaza

August 31, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
An Allen Superior Court correctly ruled that a travel plaza had a vested right to develop its plans under an original zoning ordinance, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.
More

COA: Business is a nuisance to homeowners

August 26, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Despite modifications to a mycelium-drying business located adjacent to a farmhouse, the business is still a nuisance that deprives the homeowners from the free use and enjoyment of their property, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

Worker's suicide fails chain of causation testRestricted Content

August 21, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
A widow's request for workers' compensation benefits of her deceased husband can't be granted because his death at work was caused by a knowingly self-inflicted injury, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today. The woman failed to satisfy the chain of causation test in trying to prove an initial work-related event led to her husband's death.
More

Fax confirmation creates issue of fact

August 20, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed for the first time in a ruling today the evidentiary significance of a fax confirmation generated by the sender's machine. The Circuit Court determined the fax confirmation is strong evidence of receipt, so the District Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of a company in an employment-discrimination case.
More

Female firefighter not discriminated against

August 20, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indianapolis Fire Department didn't discriminate against a short female firefighter when it ordered her to be psychologically evaluated or perform driving tests, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed today.
More

Judges disagree if testimony is hypothetical

August 18, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed over whether two doctors' expert witness testimony in a medical malpractice case used hypothetical language that couldn't raise a genuine issue of fact.
More

IDEM could fire employee for ethics violation

August 17, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The state's Ethics Commission correctly concluded an Indiana Department of Environmental Management employee violated a provision of the ethics code when he bought gas with a state-issued credit card at a gas station he partly owned.
More

COA disagrees on damages to bidder

August 12, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed today whether a company should be entitled to damages when it lowered its bid for work at a state-run hospital based on fraudulent information from another bidder.
More

Insurer's policy breach a case of first impression

August 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore

Judges: amendment not retroactive

August 11, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that an estate's interpretation of a 2003 amendment to Indiana Code would threaten the fiscal health of governmental entities and that the amendment isn't retroactive.
More

Judge argues ruling puts form over substance

August 10, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The chief judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals dissented from his colleagues in an insurance dispute because he believes the decision leads to "an inequitable result."
More

Couple should be allowed truck title

August 5, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a couple in a vehicle title dispute, ruling the pair should be allowed to take the title free of an auto auction's security interest in the truck.
More

Insurer must provide underinsured coverage

August 4, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
An insurance policy that doesn't provide uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage to all insureds is contrary to public policy based on Indiana statute, affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals.
More

Police officer not entitled to qualified immunity

August 3, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a police officer isn't entitled to qualified immunity in a suit claiming excessive force because the officer didn't have a reason to point a submachine gun at the plaintiffs during the execution of a search warrant.
More

COA reverses one dismissal of inmate's suit

August 3, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The New Castle inmate with a history of filing frivolous lawsuits got a minor victory in the Indiana Court of Appeals today. The judges reinstated his complaint against the only person who presided over the inmate's disciplinary hearing for a Department of Correction rule violation for filing a frivolous claim.
More

COA: University should get summary judgment

July 30, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the trustees of Indiana University, finding the trial court erred when it denied summary judgment for the school and concluded a provision in an agreement between the school and a fired professor was ambiguous.
More

COA reverses small claims judgment

July 29, 2009
Jennifer NelsonMore

Court failed to include all assets in marital pot

July 29, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
For the second time in the same case, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's division of assets in a marital dissolution because the trial court excluded from the marital pot the property the parties brought into marriage.
More
Page  << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >> pager
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