Indiana Court of Appeals

Mill not entitled to prejudgment interest on breach of contract claim

November 10, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a $36 million award to an East Chicago mill after a braking system failure led to the spillage of molten iron within the shop. But the judges reversed the grant of more than $3 million in prejudgment interest.
More

COA: Standard of care same for all doctors

November 10, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in a medical malpractice claim brought by a former inmate who had gender reassignment surgery that the standard of care for doctors practicing inside prisons is the same as the standard of care for those practicing outside of prison.
More

Doctrine of continuing wrong not applicable to man’s malpractice claim

November 7, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment in favor of a physician and a medical group on a patient’s claim of malpractice after the patient learned his allergic reactions were caused by the disinfectant used by the doctor. The judges held the doctrine of continuing wrong does not apply in this case.
More

AG asks court to appoint attorney as receiver of INCASA

November 7, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has asked a Marion County Court to appoint an attorney as receiver of an Indianapolis-based nonprofit that suspended operations in June due to financial insolvency.
More

Residents not entitled to refund for alleged Barrett Law violations

November 7, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The city of Indianapolis does not have to pay nearly $3 million in damages to residents who paid in full their share of the costs of sewer improvements. A couple sued after discovering the city had changed its financing plan and forgave future payments by those who still owed the city.
More

Judges uphold denial of motion to suppress on rehearing

November 6, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals, after clarifying a point in their original opinion, still did not believe that a police detective tried to mislead a judge in order to obtain a search warrant. The judges upheld their original decision that affirmed the denial of a man’s motion to suppress evidence collected at his home following drug deals.
More

All appeals judges retained by voters

November 5, 2014
IL Staff
The four Indiana appellate judges up for retention this year received approval from voters Tuesday.
More

Insurer on the hook for nearly $64,000 in home repairs following storm

November 5, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
An insurance company, based on the terms of its policy, is required to cover storm damage to the home of a northern Indiana couple, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Wednesday. The insurer argued deteriorated shingles were the cause of the water damage in the home.
More

COA affirms South Dakota law applies to personal injury case

November 5, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
A Marion Superior Court did not err when it decided that the location of an accident involving a drowsy driver – South Dakota – should be the applicable law in a case brought in Indiana.
More

DCS supervisor testimony did not sway case against father

November 3, 2014
Marilyn Odendahl
Allowing a child services supervisor’s hearsay testimony about a father’s fitness to retain his parental rights was, at most, a harmless error, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
More

Summary judgment inappropriate in light of pending discovery

October 31, 2014
Marilyn Odendahl
Noting a pending discovery may still turn up answers, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a summary judgment and allowed a feud between former business partners to continue.
More

Treatment facility that released patient information not entitled to summary judgment

October 31, 2014
Marilyn Odendahl
A man who says he is suffering negative repercussions after a mental health facility released his medical information to a family member will be able to move forward with his case in court.
More

COA: Insurance agent did not have duty to advise

October 31, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of an agent and an insurance company after the owner of a pub sued them believing they owed a duty to advise that the policy the pub chose would be insufficient to cover the replacement cost of the building.
More

Judges affirm county commissioners can sue attorney for legal malpractice

October 31, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The trial court did not err in denying an attorney’s motion to dismiss a legal malpractice claim brought against him by Clark County’s Board of Commissioners and Aviation Board, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
More

Trial court lacked authority to order dad to pay for child’s college

October 31, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Tackling an issue of first impression involving a request for payment of post-secondary education expenses, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a child support order under I.C. 31-16-6-6 refers to the parties’ most recent order concerning support.
More

COA dismisses appeal as moot since inmate has been released

October 31, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Because a man who was sent to the Department of Correction after his community corrections placement was revoked has been released from prison, his appeal is moot, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Friday.
More

Judges dismiss appeal of small claims judgment as untimely

October 31, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Finding an auto dealer untimely appealed the denial of his motion to correct error regarding a judgment in favor of a buyer, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
More

Judges reverse teen’s adjudication for resisting law enforcement

October 30, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Citing lack of evidence, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed an Indianapolis teen’s adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. None of his actions suggested any criminal activity was afoot.
More

Court orders more proceedings on injured subcontractor’s negligence lawsuit

October 29, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Finding genuine issues of material fact exist in a negligence lawsuit as to the general contractor’s role in a subcontractor’s injury, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment and ordered further proceedings.
More

Owner not entitled to more cash for building destroyed by fire

October 29, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the owner of a building leased to a Bloomington pet shop that was destroyed by a fire in 2008 is only entitled to the actual cash value of the building and not the replacement cost.
More

Judges reverse order that man pay ex-wife $95,000 in attorney fees

October 29, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the arbitrator in a contentious divorce proceeding erred when she ordered the husband to pay $95,000 in attorney fees to his ex-wife.
More

Court adopts case-by-case approach in subrogation issue

October 28, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals, after skirting around the issue in 2012, decided that Indiana should use the case-by-case approach to address subrogation claims of landlords’ insurers against negligent tenants.
More

Children should remain in home despite grandmother’s felony conviction

October 28, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals found I.C. 31-19-11-1(c) to be unconstitutional as applied and upheld the adoption of two boys by their maternal grandmother. The judges held that her 1997 felony conviction for neglect of a dependent should not automatically bar her from adopting the children.
More

Police had probable cause to arrest man at library for child porn possession

October 28, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
Even though a man’s possession of child pornography charge was eventually dismissed, his arrest on the matter at a Bloomington library led to other charges. The Court of Appeals Tuesday affirmed the denial of Paul Allen Decker’s motion to suppress, in which he claimed any evidence stemming from that arrest must be suppressed.
More

Defense counsel’s move to prosecutor’s side doesn’t require special prosecutor

October 28, 2014
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a man’s 60-year sentence for shooting and killing his girlfriend after an argument, rejecting his claim that a special prosecutor should have been appointed in his case after his defense counsel took a job with the prosecutor’s office.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> 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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT