The determination of whether an out-of-state attorney is granted temporary admission should be made without restriction by local rule and within the discretion granted by Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 3(2) – whether good cause exists for the admission of the attorneys.
Civil
Bd. of Commissioners of the County of Jefferson v. Teton Corp., No. 72S04-1410-CT-642, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., May 13, 2015).
Adopts the “any insurance” approach to the AIA waiver—“that as long as a property owner’s damages are covered by any property insurance policy used to insure construction-related damages (i.e., the work), the waiver applies to all damages”
Harris v. Harris, No. 49A04-1501-DR-14, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., May 7, 2015).
Husband consented to trial court’s personal jurisdiction when he asked the trial court to approve an agreed entry for decree of dissolution, authorizing the court to adjudicate all issues necessary to dispose of the marital property.
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Brown, No. 49S02-1504-CT-225, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 24, 2015).
The trial court reasonably concluded that Indiana was the appropriate forum for litigation brought by out-of-state plaintiffs against an in-state manufacturer.
Bogner v. Bogner, No. 45S04-1501-DR-23, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2015).
The best practices for conducting a summary proceeding, “would include establishing on the record: 1) affirmative agreement from the attorneys that proceedings will be conducted summarily, for those represented by counsel; 2) affirmative agreement by both clients or unrepresented litigants to summary proceedings; 3) opportunity for both parties to add any other relevant information regarding the issues in dispute before the summary proceeding is concluded or to affirm the arguments made by counsel; and 4) an advisement in advance of the hearing that either party is free to object to the form of the proceeding and request a full evidentiary hearing, upon which formal rules of evidence and procedure will be observed.”