Blog

​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.

Columbus Regional Hospital v. Amburgey (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2012) 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.

​Johnson v. Dr. A (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2012) In this medical malpractice case, the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal on procedural grounds but issued an advisory opinion regarding discovery of out-of-state non-parties.

Curtis v. Miller’s Health Systems (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2012) In this medical malpractice case, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendant healthcare provider and reached an important conclusion regarding a nurse’s ability to offer expert opinion on the standard of care in malpractice suits.

Thalheimer v. Halum (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2012) This case involved a dispute between homeowners and a contractor, whom the homeowners hired to remove carpet and tiles and to install new tiles.

​E.J. v. Okolocha (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2012) Parents interested in adopting a child submitted an authorization to a doctor for the child’s mother’s prenatal records.

Feyka v. State (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of Class A child molesting, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor’s closing argument constituted fundamental error and that the victim’s testimony was incredibly dubious and therefore insufficient to sustain his conviction.

​Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company (Ind. Ct. App. July 18, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals interpreted an Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage provision stating that the policy limits of liability are reduced by “a payment made or amount payable because of bodily injury under any workers’ compensation or disability benefits law or any similar law.”

​Gaither v. Indiana Department of Correction (Ind. Ct. App. July 17, 2012). In this case, the Court of Appeals held that although a statute prohibiting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school could not apply to sex offenders convicted before the statute was enacted, a trial court’s condition of probation prohibiting a sex offender from living within 1,000 feet of a school was valid.

​Swammi, Inc. v. Shambaugh, Beck, Kast, Williams, LLP (Ind. Ct. App. July 13, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed a defense verdict in a legal malpractice action.

​Shoettmer v. Wright (Ind. Ct. App. July 13, 2012) This case addressed the question of whether communicating notice of a claim against a governmental agency to that entity’s insurance company constitutes sufficient notice under Indiana’s tort claims statute.

​McWhorter v. State (Ind. Ct. App. July 9, 2012) In this case, the defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after being charged with murder.

Hirsch v. Oliver (Ind. June 29, 2012) In this case, the Supreme Court clarified some important issues regarding emancipation and a parent’s obligation to pay child support for post-secondary education expenses.

​Wynkoop v. Town of Cedar Lake (Ind. Ct. App. June 29, 2012) This case involves the often-litigated issue of whether one has a constitutionally protected interest in one’s employment.

​City of Indianapolis v. Buschman (Ind. Ct. App. June 26, 2012) Plaintiffs who are injured by governmental entities must provide notice to those entities within 180 days of the injury or forfeit the claim.