Indiana Supreme Court: ‘Even Slight Evidence of Excusable Neglect’ Sufficient to Uphold Trial Court’s Setting Aside of Default Judgment

Indiana Supreme Court: ‘Even Slight Evidence of Excusable Neglect’ Sufficient to Uphold Trial Court’s Setting Aside of Default Judgment

This week, we look at the Indiana Supreme Court’s extremely brief decision in Wamsley v. Tree City Village, which affirmed a trial court’s order setting aside default judgment because there was “even slight evidence of excusable neglect.”

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals Reminds That Judgments Cannot be Entered Without Personal Jurisdiction

Indiana Court of Appeals Reminds That Judgments Cannot be Entered Without Personal Jurisdiction

This discussion focuses on the need to perfect service in Indiana in order to obtain personal jurisdiction and how the failure to do so may render even an out-of-state judgment void.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Location of Registered Agent No Longer Basis for Preferred Venue

Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Location of Registered Agent No Longer Basis for Preferred Venue

In this post, we discuss the Indiana Court of Appeals ruling in Morrison v. Vasquez holding that the place of a “registered agent” is no longer a basis for preferred venue under Trial Rule 75(A)(4) and why it may not be correct.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Answers When a Change in Legal Theory Stated in a Complaint Will Prove Disastrous and When an Indiana Supply Contract is Enforceable

Seventh Circuit Answers When a Change in Legal Theory Stated in a Complaint Will Prove Disastrous and When an Indiana Supply Contract is Enforceable

This week, we discuss the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in the second appeal of Brc Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Cont’l Carbon Co., which held that a supply contract for the purchase of an approximate amount for a fixed price was an enforceable contract and further analyzed how a change in legal theory from that advanced in the complaint may impact the litigation.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Developments in Litigation Can Allow Remand for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy and Recovery in Excess of $75,000

Indiana Court of Appeals: Developments in Litigation Can Allow Remand for Failure to Meet Amount in Controversy and Recovery in Excess of $75,000

Today, we look at a case whose procedural posture may be almost impossible to replicate that resulted in a successful remand motion from federal court in which the plaintiff asserted that the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000 and an appellate court affirming a subsequent state-court jury verdict for $187,500.

Read More

Indiana: Filing an Appeal With a Pending Motion to Correct Error

Indiana: Filing an Appeal With a Pending Motion to Correct Error

Today’s discussion focuses on a narrow issue of appellate practice on which the Indiana Court of Appeals has now spoken strongly: “Even if our trial and appellate rules do not expressly forbid the simultaneous filings of motions to correct error and notices of appeal by one party—or the filing of a notice of appeal before a motion to correct error has been ruled on or deemed denied—we believe it is inadvisable to do so.”

Read More

Why Summary Judgment Predicated on Defense of Contributory Negligence is Almost Impossible in Indiana

Why Summary Judgment Predicated on Defense of Contributory Negligence is Almost Impossible in Indiana

Today, we look at the propriety of adjudicating personal injury cases on the basis of a contributory negligence defense at summary judgment through the lens of the new decision in Gonzalez v. Ritz. We also examine the burden on a movant to establish that evidence would certainly not be admissible at trial in order to exclude it at summary judgment.

Read More

Indiana: Who Can Bring Claim for Death of Child When Both Parents Also Die?

Indiana: Who Can Bring Claim for Death of Child When Both Parents Also Die?

In this post, we discuss Parsley v. MGA Family Group, Inc., which held that a grandmother as de facto guardian was not able to pursue a child wrongful death claim for the death of her grandson. After questioning whether the Indiana Court of Appeals reached the right decision, we examine what the procedure is in general to pursue a claim when a child’s custodian is killed alongside the child.

Read More

Indiana: What to Do When Discovering After the Statute of Limitations Expires That the Wrong Party Was Named?

Indiana: What to Do When Discovering After the Statute of Limitations Expires That the Wrong Party Was Named?

This week we look at the decision in Webb v. City of Carmel and look to use of Trial Rule 15(C) for adding a new party after the statute of limitations has expired. We also discuss whether the court of appeals misapplied Indiana’s summary judgment standard in this case, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of the movants’ evidence, only a determination that the non-movant’s evidence was insufficient.

Read More

Did the Indiana Court of Appeals Just Rewrite Trial Rule 75(A)?

Did the Indiana Court of Appeals Just Rewrite Trial Rule 75(A)?

This week, we look at a recent decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals that looks to have established a new, non-textual standard for determining preferred venue in Indiana. In so doing, the opinion looks to have manifested the concerns of Justices Dickson and Rucker in their dissenting opinion to R & D Transport, Inc. v. A.H.

Read More

When Does a Proprietor Owe a Duty to Stop One Patron from Shooting Another? Indiana Court of Appeals Weighs In

When Does a Proprietor Owe a Duty to Stop One Patron from Shooting Another? Indiana Court of Appeals Weighs In

This week we look at the remarkable decision in Hamilton v. Steak'n Shake Operations Inc., which took a deep dive into the analyses of Goodwin v. Yeakle's Sports Bar & Grill and Rogers v. Martin to conclude that a restaurant proprietor owes a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect a "restaurant patron who has been subjected to escalating threats and taunts" from "injury resulting after the encounter culminated in physical violence."

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Failure to Respond to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Not Necessarily Fatal

Indiana Court of Appeals: Failure to Respond to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment Not Necessarily Fatal

This week we discuss an interesting circumstance of whether failure to file a response to a cross-motion for summary judgment prohibits reliance upon evidence filed in the initial motion for summary judgment.

Read More

Are You Held to Know Government Regulations That Are Mere Adoptions of Copyrighted Standards Not Freely Accessible? Perhaps Not

Are You Held to Know Government Regulations That Are Mere Adoptions of Copyrighted Standards Not Freely Accessible? Perhaps Not

This week, we discuss the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., which addressed both when a claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(B)(6) for being untimely and whether a person is held to know law that is actually incorporation by reference to copyrighted material, not otherwise freely accessible to the public.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals Reverses Rule 41(E) Dismissal for Suspended Lawyer’s Failure to Timely Serve Defendant

Indiana Court of Appeals Reverses Rule 41(E) Dismissal for Suspended Lawyer’s Failure to Timely Serve Defendant

This week, we look to the recent decision in Petrovski v. Neiswinger, which reversed dismissal for failure to prosecute where the delay was caused by a lawyer who was suspended from the practice of law and not the client.

Read More

Indiana Court of Appeals: Woman Injured by Step Down in Aircraft Hangar to Have Her Day in Court

Indiana Court of Appeals: Woman Injured by Step Down in Aircraft Hangar to Have Her Day in Court

This week we discuss Walters v. JS Aviation, Inc., which reversed summary judgment against a woman who was injured when she missed a step down at an aircraft hangar that may not have been properly marked.

Read More