Blog

​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.

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.

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.

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.”