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.
State Mutual Insurance Company v. Flexdar, Inc. (Ind. March 22, 2012) In a 3-2 decision, our Supreme Court held that the pollution exclusion in the Defendant’s commercial general liability policy was ambiguous and therefore provided coverage for the Plaintiff’s costs of cleaning up trichloroethylene that was present in its soil and groundwater.
Chaney v. Clarion Health Partners, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. March 22, 2012) In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed its initial order awarding appellate fees and costs but modified its published decision based on two errors pointed out by the parties seeking a rehearing.
Insurance coverage dispute regarding coverage for proceedings related to the remediation of contamination at a gas station gave the Court of Appeals the opportunity to discuss the known loss doctrine and the reasonable notice requirement present in most general liability policies.
Messer v. New Albany Police Department (Ind. Ct. App. March 15, 2012) This case addressed the interaction of the First Amendment right to free speech and the government’s authority to regulate the speech of its own employees.
In re T.M. (Ind. March 13, 2012) and In re K.D. (Ind. March 13, 2012) These companion cases addressed the procedural due process safeguards required in CHINS cases. Specifically, the cases held that parents who request a contested fact-finding hearing have a constitutional due process right to such a hearing.
Garrett v. State (Ind. Ct. App. March 7, 2012) The Court of Appeals held it was reversible error to refuse to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of possession of methamphetamine in addition to the charge of dealing methamphetamine.
Thatcher v. City of Kokomo (Ind. March 6, 2012) In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court answered two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana regarding the 1977 Fund, a disability and pension fund for police officers and firefighters
Hanna v. Indiana Farms Mutual Insurance Company (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2012) This case involves an underinsured motorists (UIM) claim brought by the parents of a child killed in a two-car collision during a drag race.
Brown v. Hamilton (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2012)The Court of Appeals held that a driver who signals to a second driver that it is safe to proceed owes a duty to a third motorist who is injured because of the second driver’s reasonable reliance on the signaling driver.
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.