The IndyBar Legislative Committee is currently monitoring the following litigation related legislation.

The IndyBar Legislative Committee is currently monitoring the following litigation related legislation.

Social media has also become an important resource for information on potential and actual jurors. However, it has also become a source of consternation when jurors aren’t forthright in voir dire or when they disclose too much via social media during trial, both of which have had dramatic consequences.

The IndyBar Legislative Committee is currently monitoring the following litigation related legislation.

The IndyBar Legislative Committee is currently monitoring the following litigation related legislation.

The IndyBar Legislative Committee is currently monitoring the following litigation related legislation.

The decision in Indiana University Health Southern Indiana Physicians, Inc. v. Noel, 114 N.E.3d 479, (In. Ct. App 2018) addressed whether the county where a defendant’s registered agent is located qualifies as “the principal office of a defendant organization” under Trial Rule 75 (A)(4). The complaint in Noel was filed in Marion County. The only basis for venue in Marion County was that the registered agent for IU Health was located in Marion County.  The Indiana Court of Appeals held that venue was proper in Marion County under Trial Rule 75 (A) (4) because the registered agent was located in Marion County. 

Recharge your practice with insight, connections and information you won’t find anywhere else at the 2019 Bench Bar Conference!

The decision in an Indiana civil forfeiture case surprised almost no one. Based on the tone of the oral arguments, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated to the states was a given to most attorneys.

The growing number of states embracing the creation of state “solicitors general” could give female attorneys a chance to get their feet in the door of the insular world of Supreme Court practice.