Reading and watching the news for the last few days has made it clear that the United States Supreme Court's recently issued "Rainbow Rulings", which dealt with different facets of gay rights and marriage, are two of the least-understood opinions in memory.
Wright v. Miller (Ind. June 21, 2013) In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the Trial Court’s exclusion of a plaintiff’s expert witness and dismissal of the plaintiff’s case for repeatedly failing to comply with the Trial Court’s case management order and deadlines.
In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a medical malpractice claim, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint under Indiana Code section 34-18-10-14 and that it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 41(E).
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.
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.
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.
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.
The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.
Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.
Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.
A representative will be in touch with you shortly.
An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.