Indianapolis, IN
Civil rights Lawyer at Indianapolis, IN
Practice Areas: Civil Rights, Appeals ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Jury Trial - verdict in our client's favor.
Criminal Jury Trial - Verdict in Our Client's Favor. Outcomes in a jury trial are case and fact specific and this should not be misconstrued to represent a promised outcome.
OUTCOME: Reversed in part on Appeal. Published Appellate Opinion.
Successful Published Appeal in our Client's Favor. All appeals are case specific and depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.
OUTCOME: Trial - Verdict in our Client's Favor
Defendant charged with Disorderly Conduct. Trial resulted in our client's favor. Please note that outcomes of all cases depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case.
OUTCOME: Published Indiana Supreme Court Opinion.
On behalf of the ADR Section and the Indiana Association of Mediators, we have argued that mediations are confidential and fall within an evidentiary exception of ADR Rule 2.11. We argued before the ... Indiana Supreme Court and the Indiana Supreme Court agreed with our position. Further, we requested that a task force review the ADR rules and determine what changes, if any, need to be made to the ADR rules, after no changes were made for approximately 20 years. As a result, a task force was created and has reviewed the rules and made the recommendations for various modifications and updates to the ADR rules. Please note that all dispositions of cases depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
OUTCOME: We successfully defended the appellate case and replied to their request to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court. Our Client was able to retain sole custody of his daughter.
The client received primary custody of his daughter at the trial court level. Appellant appealed on various grounds, including that the trial court applied the incorrect statute to determine custody. ... We successfully defended the appeal and argued that even if the incorrect statute was applied by the trial court, the Client should maintain custody due to harmless error and also because it was in the best interests of the child. We also compared the statute that the trial court used and the standard that they should have used to demonstrate that the outcome would have been the same. The Appellate Court agreed with our analysis--including that the incorrect statute was, in fact used by the trial court, but that the result would have been the same if the correct statute was used. The Appellant petitioned for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court and we responded to their petition. Their petition to transfer was denied and the decision for our Client to retain primary custody of his daughter was upheld. Please note that all dispositions of cases depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.