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.
Perkins v. Stesiak (Ind. Ct. App. May 30, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff had no cognizable claim for emotional distress.
Myers v. Deets (Ind. Ct. App. May 29, 2012) This case involves a suit by a client against an attorney and the attorney’s partner (“Edward”), firm, and insurance company after the attorney allegedly and improperly failed to refund part of a retainer.
Reynolds v. Capps (Ind. Ct. App. May 23, 2012) A landlord filed a claim for ejection and past-due rent. No judge appeared at the small claims trial, so a court reporter took down the argument from the parties.
Clements v. Hall(Ind. Ct. App. April 24, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment. The defendant’s attorney was not served with the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, which the trial court had granted.
In this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the Review Board’s grant of unemployment benefits, holding that if an employee’s explanation for the behavior that led to termination is a different terminable offense, the employer has just cause to terminate the employee.
This case is Indiana's Court of Appeals' first in-depth discussion of the SCOTUS decision in Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), which addressed the authority of police officers to conduct pat-down searches of vehicle passengers after routine traffic stops.
The Estate of Smith v. Stutzman (Ind. Ct. App. March 23, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly set aside a default judgment entered against an employer on a claim brought by an employee who claimed he was injured due to the employer’s negligence.
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.