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.
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 the 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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ashabranner v. Wilkins (Ind. Ct. App. June 15, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals addressed a situation in which a nineteen-year-old child lived with neither parent, received Section 8 housing assistance, worked, and was in the process of beginning college.
A.R.M. v. State (Ind. Ct. App. June 7, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals addressed the Protected Person Statute, Indiana Code section 35-37-6-6, which governs, among other things, the admission of child testimony by videotape in sex crime cases.
Sexton v. Sexton (Ind. Ct. App. June 8, 2012) This case is the Court of Appeals’ first opportunity to discuss Public Law 111-2012, which will change the presumptive age for termination of child support from twenty-one to nineteen, effective July 1, 2012.
W.D. v. City of Nappanee (Ind. Ct. App. June 6, 2012) This case involves a suit brought by a child and his parents against the City of Nappanee following injuries sustained by the child in a near-drowning in the City pool.
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.