First impression
Temporary and lessee worker same under act
March 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn what appears to be the first time the Indiana Court of Appeals has been presented with a joint employer argument in the
context of Indiana Code Section 22-3-6-1(a), the Worker's Compensation Act, the appellate court determined that "temporary
employee" and "leased employee" are not mutually exclusive terms and are interchangeable.
MoreCasino wins compulsive gambling appeal
March 20, 2009
Michael HoskinsCasinos don't have a common law duty to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves, and aren't required to refrain
from trying to entice those people into their establishments, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today in a matter of first
impression.
MoreMoving chattel for suit doesn't establish venue
March 19, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn its opinion today regarding a breach of warranty case, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to define for the first time what
"regularly located or kept" meant for purposes of Indiana Trial Rule 75(A)(2).
MoreHigh court rules on issue preclusion in tax case
March 16, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an opinion handed down March 6, the Indiana Supreme Court had to decide whether a previous ruling barred the Indiana Department
of Revenue from raising new contentions in support of a different method of allocation of income to the state.
MoreeBay suit presents issue of first impression
March 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression in Indiana - and possibly in the United States - the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed specific
jurisdiction questions in a suit filed by sellers on the online auction site, eBay.
MoreHigh court: land seller not liable in death
March 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing an issue of first impression today, the Indiana Supreme Court considered under what circumstances a vendor
of land may be liable to a third party for harm resulting from the condition of trees on the property near a road.
MoreMan isn't entitled to parental privilege defense
March 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether a defendant who lived in a woman's
home in exchange for babysitting her children would fall under the parental privilege defense for disciplining a child.
MoreCOA: State must prove violation of statute
February 26, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time today whether under Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-16(b) a defendant
only has the burden of placing the issue in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so.
MoreBank wrongfully refused to pay cashier's check
February 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression as to what circumstances an issuing bank may refuse to pay a cashier's check, the Indiana
Court of Appeals ruled in the instant case the issuing bank wasn't entitled to stop payment on it later.
More7th Circuit addresses challenges under the RFA
January 12, 2009
Jennifer Nelson7th Circuit adresses for the first time who could bring a challenge to a regulatory flexibility analysis or certification
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
MoreParties can't pick certain provisions to enforce
December 29, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression today regarding whether a person could seek to enforce
rights under a vehicle purchasing agreement he didn't sign but then disavow other provisions set forth in the same document.
MoreCOA: Warrant didn't need to be admitted
December 22, 2008
Rebecca BerfangerIn a case of first impression involving whether an active arrest warrant must be admitted into evidence when the defendant
has not challenged the warrant's validity, the Court of Appeals has affirmed an appellant-defendant's conviction of
Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana that an officer discovered during a routine traffic stop.
MoreJudges disagree on trust jurisdiction issue
December 11, 2008
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed whether an Indiana probate court had subject matter
and personal jurisdiction over a trust based in Virginia.
MoreCourt tackles 2 first-impression issues
December 9, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court ruled on a case today in which there were two issues of first impression, finding consolidation
of a trial with a preliminary injunction hearing without notice isn't a reversible error unless a showing of prejudice
can be made.
MoreNo partial parental right termination allowed
October 31, 2008
Michael HoskinsIndiana law doesn't allow for partial termination of parental rights, the state's Court of Appeals has ruled in a
case of first impression.
MoreEconomic presence meets taxing requirement
October 21, 2008
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Tax Court has ruled that a bank didn't need to have a physical presence in
the state to be subject to Indiana's Financial Institutions Tax.
MoreSpecial judge invalidates local impact fee
October 21, 2008
Michael HoskinsIn the first court decision of its kind in Indiana, a special judge has invalidated Zionsville's parks impact fee because
it violates state statute.
MoreTransfer granted in write-offs case
October 1, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer yesterday to a case of first impression involving write-offs and insurance benefits.
MoreTransfer granted to school financing case
September 29, 2008
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer last week to a case of first impression involving the courts' authority to
review the state's school financing formula.
MoreDecomposition cleanup subject to lien law
September 22, 2008
Michael HoskinsA decomposing body left in a Johnson County home has led the Indiana Court of Appeals to analyze the state mechanic's
lien statute.
MoreCOA: Gun test-firing not an unlawful search
September 19, 2008
Michael HoskinsRoutine test-firing of handguns that police have in their custody isn't a violation of a person's Fourth Amendment
rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCourt: Evidence shows car was a gift
September 18, 2008
Jennifer NelsonIn a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that a husband gave his wife a car
as a gift, despite registering the title in both his name and his wife's name.
More7th Circuit won't rehear in vitro case
August 22, 2008
Michael HoskinsThe full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals won't rehear a case of first impression involving an Indiana woman's claim
that she was wrongfully fired for taking time off for in vitro fertilization, and attorneys haven't decided whether to
seek further review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
MoreAdult son could file paternity, support petition
August 21, 2008
Jennifer NelsonA retroactive child support action brought by an adult child presented an issue of first impression for the Indiana Court
of Appeals, which ruled the adult child could bring the action, but his mother would be the proper recipient of the retroactive
payments.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!