Indiana: When Can an Employer be Liable for an Intentional Tort?

Indiana: When Can an Employer be Liable for an Intentional Tort?

This week's discussion focuses on when an employer can be held liable for the intentional and criminal actions of its employees. The case for discussion finds that an employer may be liable where a security guard shot a woman with whom he was romantically involved after an argument while he was on guard duty at an apartment complex.

Read More

7th Circuit Rejects Heightened Ascertainability Requirement in Consumer Class Actions Signaled in Carrera v. Bayer Corp. (3d Cir. 2013)

7th Circuit Rejects Heightened Ascertainability Requirement in Consumer Class Actions Signaled in Carrera v. Bayer Corp. (3d Cir. 2013)

In a major decision, the Seventh Circuit rejected the heightened ascertainability requirement for class certification that has been recently adopted in the Third Circuit. As a result, the Seventh Circuit not only rejected adoption of the Third Circuit's interpretation, but also dissected and found lacking each of the proffered underlying policies. Thus, the Seventh Circuit still recognizes the utility of affidavits in identifying class members. Perhaps the best line: "When it comes to protecting the interests of absent class members, courts should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good."

Read More

7th Circuit Weighs in on Crucial Standing Issue in Cyberattack Cases

7th Circuit Weighs in on Crucial Standing Issue in Cyberattack Cases

Today's discussion focuses on this week's Seventh Circuit decision in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, in which the court found standing for a putative class action following a cyberattack causing credit card information for 350,000 customers to be accessed.

Read More

Indiana: Failure to Wear Seatbelt Not Admissible in Personal Injury Case

Indiana: Failure to Wear Seatbelt Not Admissible in Personal Injury Case

This week's discussion focuses on a recent Indiana appellate decision affirming a motion in liming to exclude evidence that the plaintiff in personal injury case was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. We use this platform to discuss more expansively the admission of evidence of whether an injured person was wearing a seatbelt in the context of a personal injury trial.

Read More

Indiana Supreme Court Issues Rare Decision Addressing Pro Hac Vice Admission in Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court Issues Rare Decision Addressing Pro Hac Vice Admission in Indiana

A discussion of the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in YTC Dream Homes, Inc. v. DirectBuy, Inc. discussing the propriety of pro hac vice admission and also proposing an amendment I'd like to see to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A) allowing interlocutory appeals of right for decisions denying/granting pro hac admission and for decisions granting or denying disqualification of an attorney.

Read More

When Appeals Go Bad: Attorney’s Fees for Frivolous Appeals in Indiana

When Appeals Go Bad: Attorney’s Fees for Frivolous Appeals in Indiana

Although it is extremely rare, there are cases in which arguments on appeal are so tremendously devoid of merit so as to subject their advocates to sanctions for payment of opposition attorney fees for frivolity. This post discusses one of these rare cases.

Read More

What Happens on Appeal When Trial Court Dismisses Case Without Deciding All Issues: Competing Fields of Thought?

What Happens on Appeal When Trial Court Dismisses Case Without Deciding All Issues: Competing Fields of Thought?

What happens when the trial court enters a final judgment that isn't really final because the trial court has not actually decided every issue? Earlier this month, Chief Judge Wood for the Seventh Circuit indicated that an appellate court has no choice but to remand the case due to a lack of appellate jurisdiction. Today, the Court of Appeals of Indiana issue a decision that takes a different approach–the approach taken by the Second Circuit in a case mirroring the issue addressed by Chief Judge Wood: decide the merits of the appeal and remand for further proceedings on the overlooked issue.

Read More

Indiana Supreme Court: ‘Value’ of Work Includes More Than Money Paid

Indiana Supreme Court: ‘Value’ of Work Includes More Than Money Paid

This week, the Indiana Supreme Court was faced with an issue of first impression: whether "value" in the Worker's Compensation Act meant only the money paid for the work or whether it included other consideration for the work. The ambiguity was found in a portion of the Act affixing secondary liability for persons contracting for work in excess of $1,000 in value. The plaintiff–an employee of a tree removal business–argued that the act applied because the value of the wood that his employer was allowed to keep, coupled with the $600 paid for the removal, exceeded $1,000. The court agreed.

Read More