|
|
|
Indianapolis Business Litigation Law Firm
Attorney News |
2012/03/02 10:18
|
Whether they be fast-moving injunction proceedings or complex partnership disputes, clients bring their high-stakes business disputes to us.
Contract Disputes
Contract disputes are perhaps the most common form of disputes in business litigation. Ideally, every contract would be in writing and well-drafted. However, not all contracts are in writing, and even those that are written may not be well-drafted, leaving some issues unclear or not addressed at all. Often contract disputes involve these and other complex factual and legal issues. That’s where our commercial litigation attorneys excel.
Riley Bennett & Egloff Law is an Indianapolis based Business Litigation Law Firm and has expertise in resolving hundreds of contract disputes through negotiation, mediation, and litigation. Whether your disputes are simple or complex, their experience consistently guides their approach to successfully help resolve the matter in the careful manner it deserves. Visit www.rbelaw.com for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Attorney News |
2012/02/27 10:20
|
The Indiana Court of Appeals has issued a decision that may have a large impact on summary judgment practice in Indiana. In Commr. of the Indiana Dept. of Ins. v. Black, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court essentially held that Indiana will apply the standard set forth in Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), at least in some circumstances.
Tim Black alleged that Dr. Harris and others rendered negligent care to his wife after she complained of chest pain. The negligence allegedly resulted in severe cardiac arrest and resulted in the need for a heart transplant. The medical review panel unanimously concluded that Dr. Harris failed to comply with the applicable standard of care.
After the panel decision, Black filed a petition seeking payment of $1 million from the Patient's Compensation Fund and asserted that he had settled with Dr. Harris for $250,000, thereby satisfying the qualifying amount to get to the fund. The Commissioner sought discovery of the settlement agreement but Black refused to produce it, saying it was confidential. Black did produce a copy of an unauthenticated check in the amount $250,000 from the Medical Assurance Co., made payable to Black and his counsel. Black also produced some correspondence between counsel that discussed a prospective settlement.
The Commissioner moved to dismiss the petition claiming that he needed the settlement agreement in order to make payment. It was not clear from the check whether the payment was for settlement with Dr. Harris or other defendants. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and after conducting a hearing on damages, ordered the Commissioner to pay Black $1 million. The Commissioner appealed.
In considering the motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals observed that matters outside the pleadings were submitted in support of the motion to dismiss and were relied on by the trial court. In light of this fact, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to T.R. 12(B), treated the motion as one for summary judgment. In a footnote, the court recognized that T.R. 12(B) requires that "all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such motion by Rule 56." Although no such "opportunity" was given, the court found there was "no prejudice" and proceeded to consider the appeal as a summary judgment case.
The court noted that the Commissioner's position on the motion required him to prove a negative?-that there was no settlement with Harris for $250,000. In Jarboe v. Landmark Cmty. Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1994), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected the view that a party seeking summary judgment could simply point to the opponent’s burden of proof at trial and prevail unless the non-movant produced evidence supporting its claim or defense. This ruling has for many years been perceived as being at odds with Celotex, in which the U.S. Supreme Court reached a different conclusion under the federal rules. In 2000, Justice Boehm, in dissenting from a denial of transfer in Lenhart Tool & Die, Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 2000), expressed the view that a party who puts forward evidence that a non-movant will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, should be entitled to summary judgment if the non-movant fails to present such evidence. In Black, the Court of Appeals held: "Today, we accept Justice Boehm's views on this subject expressed in his dissent."
Having adopted this new standard, however, the Court of Appeals found that in this case, based on the unauthenticated check and the settlement correspondence, there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether a $250,000 settlement on Black’s claim against Harris had been accomplished. So, the Commissioner was not entitled to summary judgment. Black was also not entitled to a judgment on his claim since it was not clear that the required settlement with Harris for $250,000 had been consummated.
The Court held that the Commissioner is entitled to discovery of the settlement agreement and that the confidentiality term in the settlement agreement would not trump the Commissioner's right to such discovery. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Business and Trial Lawyer - Bryce H. Bennett, Jr.
Attorney News |
2012/02/21 10:05
|
Since 1978, Bryce Bennett has represented businesses, including insurance companies, product manufacturers, construction contractors, real estate and development companies, hospitals, nursing homes, and transportation companies as well as professionals, including doctors, lawyers, insurance and real estate agents, professional and fraternal associations, political subdivisions and municipalities including the City of Indianapolis in thousands of matters, many litigated to conclusion through dispositive motions, negotiated settlements, mediations, arbitrations and numerous bench and jury trials in State and Federal courts.
Bryce H. Bennett, Jr. is an experienced director of business entities, serving in leadership positions on many corporate and non-profit boards. Mr. Bennett was recognized for his work and was the keynote speaker for Indiana University Kelley School of Business MBA graduates and has been published and acknowledged in an article in the Indiana Lawyer. His experience representing businesses have shown favorable results for his clients. Contact Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP today to schedule a free consultation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do law firms need a good SEO?
Attorney News |
2012/02/14 09:45
|
Most lawyers who are freshly introduced to the idea of internet marketing will build their website with a design company and then think visitors will start flowing in automatically after the website's initial launch. No matter how professional and aesthetically appealing your website may be, in the web environment today, visitors will never "automatically" attract and roll in. This is why law firms need good SEO and more importantly, why SEO matters if you want your business to be successful.
So what exactly is SEO you say? Surely, you must have heard talk about this recent buzz. And if you haven't, I am here to provide the 411 on everything you need to know about good SEO.
SEO is the acronym given for "search engine optimization" and choosing to invest in good SEO will be the huge factor in improving your law firm website and will also save time and money on other marketing strategies. There is, however, a possibility at risking damage to your law firm's reputation and website if you do not do your research in advance and end up in the hand's of a careless SEO company. Good SEOs will provide useful services for law firm website owners, including but not limited to:
- content development
- keyword research
- expertise in marketing techniques
- review of your website's structure and content
- advice on technical aspects of website development
In short, SEO-friendly websites allow online robots to analyze the codes and contents of your site. Major search engines like Google and Yahoo then look specifically for keywords, phrases, and web coding in order to rank your website amongst the other competiting webpages. Organic search results is the better resort over Pay Per Click (PCC)
advertisement by increasing indexability and because of it's history. Pay Per Click services can cost a hefty sum and may not even produce effective results.
Why should you take my word for it? If I have still yet to convince you on why your law firm needs a good SEO, I'll dissect into all the benefits. A great search optimization company will do more than just generate leads for your website. Creating a website without incorporating good SEO can pretty much equate to throwing money away. The money invested in building a great website alone will not cut it AND you might even be spending more on other marketing strategies like advertising through other avenues of media. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corvallis Criminal Defense Attorneys - Arnold Law Office, LLC
Attorney News |
2012/02/08 09:41
|
Prosecutors are always ready because they handle cases just like yours every day. Our strategy to gain advantage over the prosecution is to enter each settlement negotiation ready and prepared to go over each issue in your case. It is important to know the facts and legal issues better than anyone else in the courtroom because that will give you the edge as a defendant. Choosing to hire our firm means you are hiring a team of lawyers, not just one single person. Our lawyers strategically coordinate, gather evidence and work with experts to meet the demands of your case - Corvallis Criminal Defense Attorneys.
At Arnold Law Office, LLC, our Corvallis criminal defense attorneys treat every case as if it is their most important case. We understand how much is at stake for you and we will provide you with the straight-talking legal counsel you need and deserve. Call us at 541-338-9111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Investment Fraud Litigation |
|
|
|
|
Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a practice that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of the securities laws. Securities Arbitration. Generally speaking, securities fraud consists of deceptive practices in the stock and commodity markets, and occurs when investors are enticed to part with their money based on untrue statements.
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
|
The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Securities Law News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. | Affordable Law Firm Website Design by Law Promo |
|
Legal News RSS Feed
