The Indiana Law Review would like to extend its sincere congratulations and admiration for our very own Senior […]
THE HONORABLE CALE J. BRADFORD AND ALEX J. DUDLEY Chief Judge Bradford was appointed to the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2007. Prior […]
Evan C. Zoldan[i]
When the Court of Appeals of Indiana decided an important case about gun liability in May 2019, it got a key legal point wrong. The case, City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson,[ii]arose out of a lawsuit filed by the City of Gary, Indiana (the “City”), against Smith & Wesson and other firearms manufacturers. The City asked the court to hold the manufacturers liable for creating a public nuisance and for the negligent design, distribution, and marketing of firearms. After the City’s lawsuit was filed, the Indiana legislature passed a statute granting immunity to gun manufacturers for these types of claims. Because the lawsuit predated the statute, however, it was not clear whether the statute would affect the pending lawsuit.
Administrative agencies regulate a wide breadth of issues—including driver’s licenses, alcoholic beverage permits, placement of utility poles, administration of the state’s Medicaid program, and complaints by prisoners—to name just a few examples discussed in this Article. These agencies form a bridge between Indiana’s citizens and their government.
Justice Robert D. Rucker ended his decades-long legal career in 2017 with his retirement from the Indiana Supreme Court. Justice Rucker came to the supreme court after serving eight years as a judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals. His elevation to the supreme court in 1999 still stands as the most recent occasion a court of appeals judge was selected for Indiana’s highest court. (Prior to Justice Rucker, the most recent judge to hold that honor was Justice Donald Mote, who was elevated from what was then known as the Indiana Appellate Court in 1966 into the then-elected position of supreme court justice.)
This Article focuses on opinions from the Indiana Supreme Court and many of the significant opinions from the Indiana Court of Appeals, on a wide range of [criminal law and procedure] issues that affect cases from their beginning to end.
On April 21, Governor Eric Holcomb signed into law an enactment of the General Assembly that Secretary of State Connie Lawson called “the most farreaching revision of Indiana business laws in more than two decades.” The new act consolidates in a single place in the Indiana Code and harmonizes certain administrative provisions and provisions governing transactions that had previously been contained in five different business entity statutes. Although the new law does not bring about much substantive change, it contains an unprecedented amount of procedural simplification.
Earlier this year, a trial court in Indiana ordered IBM to post a $25 million appeal bond staying execution of a $78 million judgment. The litigation arose from IBM’s breach of a contract requiring it to automate much of Indiana’s welfare services. The amounts of both the judgment and appeal bond are perhaps extraordinary. Still, the IBM case highlights lessons for attorneys requesting stays in more commonplace civil cases.
This Article begins by explaining why a party would need to request an appeal bond and the requirements for doing so. It then addresses how courts determine the amount to fix for such a bond. It concludes by offering some practical considerations for both defendants (judgment-debtors) and plaintiffs (judgment-creditors).
On November 14, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a $1.44 million jury verdict against Walgreen Company (“Walgreen”) for a pharmacist’s breach of privacy obligations. . The opinion began, “[i]n this case, a pharmacist breached one of her most sacred duties by viewing the prescription records of a customer and divulging the information she learned from those records to the client’s ex-boyfriend.” . That brief summary of the case’s fact pattern provides the foundation of what ultimately led to a large jury verdict against Walgreen, derived solely from the acts of its employee.