Blog

Cathleen Shrader joined Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Judge Nancy Vaidik of the Indiana Court of Appeals in a program celebrating the centennial of the 19th Amendment on Friday, June 12, 2020.

Indiana statute provides that real property used for “charitable purposes” can be exempt from taxation.

In medical malpractice cases, a dispute can arise over whether certain acts or omissions occurred in the course of providing medical care or the related question of whether a patient-provider relationship arose based on certain acts of a medical provider.

Some personal injury cases warrant the Mitigation of Damages defense – when the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care to minimize damages following an injury.

Interlocutory appeals can be difficult to win, but in the right case, they can help turn the tide and help lead to a good overall result to litigation.

William Ramsey will be a presenter at the Allen County Bar Association's "Appeals in Family Law Cases" program on September 12, 2019.

William Ramsey authored an article titled "Keeping the Record Straight: The Rule Against Supplementing the Record on Appeal and Exceptions Thereto" that appeared in the fall edition of The Appellate Advocate.

The Indiana Supreme Court holds that evidence of write-offs and reductions to medical bills is admissible in personal injury cases regardless of whether the plaintiff’s bills were paid by a government program or a private insurance company.

On June 1, 2016, the Supreme Court decided an issue of first impression and significant importance in the area of family law.

In Masters, the Indiana Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Masters v. Masters, 20 N.E.3d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. granted, and reinstated an award of attorney’s fees awarded to the Mother in a proceeding under the Family Law Arbitration Act (“FLAA”).

The Indiana Supreme Court recently denied transfer in the matter of Cleveland Range, LLC v. Lincoln Fort Wayne Associates, LLC, No. 2A05–1503–PL–96, ___ N.E.3d ___ , 2015 WL 5172888 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2015)[1] thereby leaving the Court of Appeals’ decision in place.

In Ball State University v. Irons, 27 N.E.3d 717 (Ind. 2015), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the appellant, Ball State University was entitled to take an interlocutory appeal of an order compelling the university to release a student transcript.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in In re Adoption of O.R., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014)

In Barwick, the Court of Appeals addressed whether an Indiana trial court had jurisdiction over a child custody proceeding that awarded custody to Father when a concurrent custody proceeding was pending in Canada.

For many types of litigation, parties will need an expert or experts to either meet their burden of proof or to respond to an opposing party's claims and evidence.

In this medical malpractice case, the Supreme Court addressed two issues: 1) the Medical Malpractice Act’s statute of limitations, and 2) the application of the Medical Malpractice Act to claims against a healthcare provider brought by someone who was not a patient of the healthcare provider.

​In Re the Guardianship of A.J.A. and L.M.A., Minor Children (Ind. July 18, 2013) In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the Indiana statute allowing, under certain circumstances, grandparents to have visitation rights.

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).