It is the defendant’s burden to timely file a T.R. 41(E) motion to dismiss before the plaintiff resumes prosecution.
Civil
Munoz v. Woroszylo, No. 79A02-1409-CT-679, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 13, 2015).
Although plaintiff used bad judgment filing suit in federal court in Illinois, there was no evidence it was done in bad faith and the lawsuit could proceed based on the Journey’s Account Statute.
Grant v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., No. 49A05-1404-MF-139, __N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., April 6, 2015).
Plaintiff improperly attempted to circumvent the trial court’s T.R. 41 ruling by filing a new complaint raising identical legal and factual issues.
Cohen & Malad, LLP v. Daly, No. 29S02-1504-PL-165, __N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 8, 2015).
“Absent agreement otherwise, ‘a lawyer retained under a contingent fee contract but discharged prior to the contingency is entitled to recover the value of services rendered if there is a subsequent settlement or award[,]’ and in that case, ‘the fee is to be measured by the proportion of the total fee equal to the contribution of the discharged lawyer’s efforts to the ultimate result[.]’”
Sargent v. State, No. 49D07-1111-MI-44802, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 24, 2015).
Reverses forfeiture of vehicle on basis that employee detained in her workplace while trying to illegally take employer’s property was not in possession, constructive or otherwise, of her automobile parked in the lot at the place of employment.