Trial Reports

The Indiana Lawyer encourages attorneys to submit trial reports on verdicts and settlements received in Indiana courts. Trial reports are published on theindianalawyer.com and in the newspaper based on space availability.

To be published, trial reports must include the names of plaintiff and defense attorneys along with the case name and number. (*See exceptions listed below.) Lawyers are encouraged to include the supplemental information requested in the trial report form to enhance the value of the report. The case information box allows the submitting attorney to provide a narrative, up to 300 words, describing the case facts, interesting issues involved and outcome.

Attorneys submitting trial reports are required to submit a copy of the report to the opposing counsel. When submitting the trial report to the Indiana Lawyer, the submitting attorney must verify in the space provided on the form that the report has been sent to opposing counsel and include the date the report was sent. No trial report will be printed without this verification. Any objections to the report by opposing counsel should be made to the submitting attorney. The trial report will be held by the Indiana Lawyer for two weeks from the date submitted to give counsel time to discuss and resolve issues. The name of the attorney submitting the report will be published with the report.

Questions about the Indiana Lawyer trial report policy should be directed to editor Jennifer Nelson at 317-472-5234 or 800-425-2201, ext. 234; or jnelson@ibj.com.

*Exceptions to data requirement:

The name and number of a case involving a sexual assault or molestation may be withheld.

The name and location of practice of a physician involved in a medical malpractice settlement may be withheld. In medical malpractice settlements bound by confidentiality agreements, the portion of the agreement binding the parties to secrecy must accompany the report form. It will be used for verification purposes only.


I certify that I have sent a copy of this report, via e-mail or hard copy, to the opposing party (your signature). You must include the date on which you sent the copy to opposing counsel.



Action is Required.

Name of Case is Required.

Court & Case Number is Required.

Injuries is Required.

Court Date is Required.

City is Required.

Judge is Required.

Disposition is Required.

Plaintiff Attorney Name Required.

Defendant Attorney Name Required.

Insurance is Required.

Signature is Required.

Submitting is Required.

Submitting Attorney Phone is Required.

Submitting Attorney Phone is Required.

Case Information is Required.

Date is Required.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT