What happens when a family member is diagnosed with a terminal illness and begins the somber review of their bucket list, noticing that a trip to Las Vegas is still unchecked? Would taking time to accompany and care for that family member be included in the definition of caring for under the FMLA?
Jim Johnson, president of DTCI, attended the 2014 DRI North Central Regional Meeting held in Fort Myers earlier this month.
With increasing frequency, plaintiffs’ attorneys are using settlement “documentary” videos before and during mediation in catastrophic cases. Utilizing the format of a tabloid television news program, these “documentaries” address problematic liability and damages issues in a light that is often unreasonably favorable to the injured party.
At the November annual meeting of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, the following officers and directors were elected. They assumed office Jan. 1, 2014.
The Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana was a proud sponsor of the American Cancer Society Discovery Ball Nov. 15 through its Joan Fullam Irick Memorial Fund.
In 2013, the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana’s Amicus Committee participated in a number of interesting appeals.
Evansville attorney Jim Johnson always wanted to be a lawyer, but he did not always want to be a leader.
Defense attorneys gathered from every corner of Indiana to attend the 20th Annual Conference & Meeting at the Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City on Nov. 21-22.
This year the DTCI Annual Meeting will be held at the Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City. The conference begins at 10 a.m. Thursday, Nov. 21, and continues through 5 p.m. on Friday, Nov. 22. If you have not yet registered to attend, I strongly encourage you to pack your suitcase with casual clothes (and a little extra green for the casino) and head north to get all the CLE you need for the year at one conference for the reasonable price of $299.
John C. Trimble, former president of DTCI, was honored with a Presidential Citation by the Indiana State Bar Association for his exceptional contribution to the profession of law and the residents of Indiana.
This is a bait-and-switch article. It applies to instructing the jury on the continuing effect of rebuttable presumptions in all civil cases. It just so happens that one of the best examples is the presumption of no liability under Indiana’s Product Liability Act. That presumption is broader than just the state-of-the-art defense.
Research has shown that the greatest barrier to advancement for women attorneys is the work-family conflict.
Many defense attorneys are eventually pulled into the love triangle of underinsured litigation. Like any good drama, underinsured cases are multifaceted and involve a bizarre set of twists and relationships.
What are, or should be, the contours of personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants who are alleged to have defamed forum residents using social media? The answer will vary depending on the social media platform at issue and the details of the communication at issue.
The medical review panel process plays an important role in medical malpractice litigation, including separating meritorious claims from meritless claims. The panel process and its effect on subsequent or concurrent litigation in court are the subjects of numerous debates and a large body of case law on a variety of issues. This article addresses two such issues: (1) a medical provider’s right to anonymity when a party files a motion for preliminary determination during the panel process; and (2) whether the statutory 90-day period following the issuance of the medical review panel’s opinion should be added to any time remaining under the statute of limitations before the plaintiff files a claim with the Indiana Department of Insurance.
Our convoy departed at 0400 in eight up-armored Humvees, two Ford Rangers and a Mahindra jeep. Heading north, we passed Bagram Airbase and began the ascent up into the Hindu-Kush Mountains. The Afghan summer heat had melted the snow that had blocked passage through the Salang Tunnel at roughly 11,000 feet.
The Indiana Supreme Court recently upheld caps on punitive damages and the procedure for allocating punitive damage awards. In State v. Doe, 987 N.E.2d 1066 (Ind. May 14, 2013), the court upheld the statute capping punitive damage awards at the greater of three times the amount of compensatory damages or $50,000. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-4. The court also upheld the statute requiring the plaintiff receive 25 percent of the punitive damages award while 75 percent goes to the Violent Crime Victim Compensation Fund. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-6. The punitive damages statute provides that the jury not be apprised of the caps or the 25-75 allocation. Ind. Code § 34-51-3-3.