Indiana man’s widow to take Johnson & Johnson to trial in Marion County over asbestos exposure
The widow alleges Johnson & Johnson and several other companies failed to warn consumers about cancer-causing asbestos in their products.
To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search
The widow alleges Johnson & Johnson and several other companies failed to warn consumers about cancer-causing asbestos in their products.
A federal district judge has sentenced two more Indianapolis men to lengthy prison terms for their involvement in the robberies.
The lawsuit is the latest legal action over PFAS, which have been linked to an increased risk of certain cancers and developmental delays in children.
The manufacturer has faced complaints for years for withholding the software needed for repairs and forcing customers to use authorized dealers.
Newspapers allege the ChatGPT maker is hiding evidence important to what could be a landmark copyright infringement trial over how OpenAI and its business partner, Microsoft, built their AI technologies using millions of news articles.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Andres Solis Guerra v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-3231
Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Judge Gina L. Jones. The court affirmed the convictions of Andres Solis Guerra for Class A felony child molesting and Level 1 felony child molesting. Guerra’s defense at trial included the exclusion of evidence regarding a physical altercation involving his girlfriend and the victim, arguing it was critical to his case. However, the court ruled that this evidence was irrelevant and could confuse the jury. Additionally, Guerra’s claims of insufficient evidence and violations of double jeopardy were rejected, as the evidence provided by the victim was sufficient for the jury to find him guilty. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s sentencing. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion. Judges Mathias and Kenworthy concurred. Appellant’s attorney: Andrew P. Martin, Miller Sachs & Hess P.C., Crown Point, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Three transformers on the man’s property exploded when power was restarted, starting the fire and destroying his home, court documents state.
Applications for the court vacancies must be submitted through the Indiana Courts Portal by noon Friday, Aug. 7.
Indiana Court of Appeals
L.M. Zeller, et al., v. Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission, et al.
No. 25A-CT-2267
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Magistrate Celia M. Pauli. In this interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs L.M. Zeller and others contend that the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission and related agencies should be overturned. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with instructions to grant summary judgment for the agencies on all claims. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Felix concurring. Appellants’ attorney: Douglas K. Briody, Law Office of Doug Briody, Evansville, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
The money was set aside after a jury found three years ago that President Donald Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 before he became president and defamed her after she publicly revealed the attack.
The renewed focus on curfews comes as cities experience some of the busiest weekends of the summer.
The case hinges on whether a subcontractor can be found liable for breach of contract for product defects even when the contract requires a specific product from a specific manufacturer.
The circuit court’s opinion comes nearly two years after arguments were heard in the case.
The five justices let stand a state appeals court decision that the records — known as terminated pregnancy reports — should be protected as confidential medical records.
French luxury brand Louis Vuitton is being accused by some of “monopolizing” traditional Chinese patterns after it won a $1.5 million trademark-infringement verdict.
Jocelyn Samuels said she was dismissing her lawsuit because the Supreme Court’s ruling in a separate case left her “without a viable path forward to continue contesting [her] termination.”
The court determined that Indiana’s add-back statute refers to direct income taxes and their functional equivalents – not unapportioned excise taxes. This means that the wagering taxes Penn Entertainment paid to other states did not have to be added back.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Zachary Clay Parksey v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-PC-2268
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court, Judge Ryan D. Hatfield, Magistrate Celia M. Pauli. Zachary C. Parksey, after pleading guilty to Level 2 felony voluntary manslaughter, sought post-conviction relief, claiming he was not informed of the mandatory lifetime parole that accompanied his plea. The post-conviction court denied relief, asserting that no advisement of the parole requirement was necessary. The appellate court determined that mandatory lifetime parole is a direct consequence of the plea and that a defendant must be advised of it before pleading guilty. It found the post-conviction court had erred in its reliance on outdated case law, reversing the ruling and remanding the case for the necessary factual determinations regarding whether Parksey had been advised and whether this would have impacted his decision to plead guilty. Judge Altice authored the opinion, with Judges Brown and DeBoer concurring. Appellant appeared pro se. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
The high court’s brief, unsigned order allows the law to be enforced while a challenge to it plays out in lower court.
Prosecutors are seeking to convince a state judge they have enough evidence to bring the defendant in Kirk’s assassination to trial and seek the death penalty.