Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc. v. United Equip. Leasing, LLC, 10 N.E.3d 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied

Jun 03, 2014

OUTCOME: Decision of the Trial Court Affirmed

Trial court set aside a preliminary ruling against my client made prior to my involvement in the case. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's power to set aside the prior ruling. Specificall ... y, defendant argued that the order, though interlocutory, was not subject to the court's inherent power and that the 2008 removal of the word "final" from Ind. Trial Rule 60(B) did not authorize the court to use T.R. 60(B) as a basis to overrule a prior interlocutory decision. The court of appeals agreed with my client and the trial court that it was proper to vacate the prior order. Defendant sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was denied.

Bell v. The Bryant Co., Inc., 2 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Nov 27, 2013

OUTCOME: Pending

Our client hired The Bryant Company to manage her rental property (collect rents, deal with tenant, etc.). More than a year later, she learned that The Bryant Company had been charging the tenant $50 l ... ate fees, and keeping the fees for itself - despite the fact that her contract with The Bryant Company required the fees to be paid to her. The trial court dismissed our claims on shaky grounds; on appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with us that the trial court committed error, finding that a jury of our peers should decide this case.

Urbina v. A Bond of Life Adoptions, LLC, No. 06A01-1210-CT-464, 2013 WL 1788250 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2013)

Apr 25, 2013

OUTCOME: Resolved Prior to Trial

The case arose after prospective adoptive parents were forced to make the impossible decision whether to permit their selfish desire to keep the infant who they had spent several days holding and lovin ... g or to allow the child to be placed with a family who could more properly provide for the child's potential special needs. The crux of the matter stemmed from the adoption agency having been informed of the birthmother's potential drug use without having relayed that information to the prospective parents. In the trial court, the judge dismissed the complaint in its entirety without findings of fact or conclusions of law. That means the decision just said, "Dismissed." We filed an appeal which forced the Court of Appeals to determine: (1) whether the adoption agency had a duty to inform the prospective parents of the drug abuse; (2) whether an exculpatory clause in the adoption agreement releasing the adoption agency from liability for "unknowns" applied to bar this case; and (3) whether the allegations provided a sufficiently outrageous scenario as to allow for a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The unanimous Indiana Court of Appeals found for the Urbinas on all three issues – meaning they will have their day in court.

McFreen v. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-764-WTL-TAB, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170680 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 10, 2014)

N/A

OUTCOME: Pending