Blog

​Alexander v. State (Ind. Ct. App. May 10, 2013) In this case, the Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed a criminal appeal on the grounds that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction because the order that the Defendant was attempting to appeal was not a final order.

In this medical malpractice case, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided, as an issue of first impression, that a proposed complaint for medical malpractice is not considered filed with the Indiana Department of Insurance on the day it is mailed if it sent by a third-party private carrier.

​Lovold v. Ellis (Ind. Ct. App. April 26, 2013) In this decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed several issues, including the often-litigated and disputed obligation of a non-custodial parent to contribute to the cost of a child’s college education.

​Sebring v. Air Equipment & Engineering, Inc. (April 4, 2013) In this products liability case, the Court of Appeals gave a comprehensive analysis of personal jurisdiction.

​Walczak v. Labor Works – Fort Wayne, LLC (Ind. March 13, 2013) In this decision, the Supreme Court addressed some uncertainty that existed regarding the Wage Payment Act and the Wage Claims Act.

In re Visitation of M.L.B. (Ind. March 7, 2013) In this opinion, the Supreme Court addressed the tension that often arises between grandparents’ rights to see their grandchildren and parents’ rights regarding their children.

​Walczak v. Labor Works-Fort Wayne, LLC (Ind. Ct. App. March 5, 2012) This case involved a claim for unpaid wages filed by an employee against a temp agency.

​Turner v. Turner (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2013) On July 1, 2012, the legislature amended Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6 by changing the presumptive age for termination of child support from twenty-one to nineteen. In this case, the Court of Appeals addressed the effect of the amended statute on child support orders entered before the amendment.

South Shore Baseball, LLC v. DeJesus (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013) The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that significantly affect claims involving injuries to spectators at baseball games or other sporting events.

​Iltzsch v. State (Ind. Jan. 24, 2013) In this opinion, the Supreme Court reached two conclusions regarding restitution proceedings.

It has been a busy start to 2013 for appeals in the news.

On December 12, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down four decisions interpreting the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statutes (TPIS), Kosarko v. Padula; Inman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Alsheik v. Guerrero; and Wisner v. Laney.

​D.C. v. J.A.C. (Ind. Nov. 13, 2012) In this child-custody dispute, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to modify custody in favor of the father and prevent the mother from moving out of state with the child.

​Amerisafe Risk Services, Inc. v. Estate of Wadsack (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals held that a party bringing against a worker’s compensation insurer and claims handler must first bring the claim before the Worker’s Compensation Board before proceeding in state court.

State v. Holtsclaw (Ind. November 5, 2012) In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court held that Appellate Rule 9, which tolls the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal when a party files a motion to correct error, applies not only in civil cases but also to the State in a criminal case.

​A.G. v. P.G. (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s extension of a protective order issued against a father in favor of a mother.

​Carpenter v. State (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2012) In this case the Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction for Class B felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

​State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kern (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2012) The Court of Appeals issued an important decision regarding underinsured motorist insurance and subrogation rights.

This medical malpractice case involves an important issue of law not previously explicitly addressed by Indiana Courts: whether a plaintiff may pursue a claim against a principal based on an apparent agency relationship where the party did not sue the agent and the statute of limitations against the agent has run.

Smith v. Dermatology Associates of Fort Wayne, P.C.(Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 7, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals discussed the applicability of res ipsa loquitur to medical malpractice cases.