|
|
|
Riley Bennett Egloff, LLP - Indianapolis Construction Law Firm
Lawyer Media News |
2012/03/02 10:10
|
As part of our experience representing owners, contractors and design professionals throughout the industry, we have written and negotiated contracts based on industry standard forms (such as the AIA forms) and have also developed custom contract documents for specific clients and projects. Based upon our experience drafting and negotiating contract documents, as well as our advice and representation of clients in construction disputes, we know what works in a contract and what does not.
* We know contracts: We routinely draft and negotiate design and construction contracts for large, complex projects.
* We know construction: We know the industry, the terminology, the technology and procedures, the economics and accounting, as well as the law and the potential pitfalls for disputes.
* We know contractors: Having represented contractors of all sizes and specialties for decades, we know how they work; we know how they plan, estimate and schedule jobs; we know their management, accounting and claims procedures; and we know what is important to them and what is not in contract negotiations and in the resolution of claims and disputes.
Riley Bennett amp; Egloff Law has expertise in all areas of construction law and their construction attorneys are dedicated to finding the best solution their construction industry clients. With much experience working with small, family-owned contractors, to some of the biggest general contractors in the Indianapolis area, Riley Bennett amp; Egloff Law knows what works.
Indianapolis Construction Law Firm
www.rbelaw.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indianapolis Business Corporate Law Firm
Lawyer Media News |
2012/02/29 09:42
|
Entity Selection amp; Formation
There are many important decisions to be made by an emerging business, each of which come with potential pitfalls that be damaging to the business and its owners in the absence of proper legal guidance. Our attorneys can help you with these issues, steering you clear of the problems while helping you select the type of entity which best serves your business interests and goals. From drafting the formation documents to stock issuance to agreements between co-owners, our Firm’s skilled business attorneys can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business’s future.
Contract Drafting amp; Negotiation
Beyond the formation of business entities, our Firm acts as a corporate counsel for many of its business clients, including the negotiation, drafting and review of our client’s contracts, ranging in size from a few thousand dollars to millions of dollars. With just a few hours’ time, our review of contracts before they are signed can help our clients avoid paying for hundreds of hours of attorney time in litigation once a contract dispute arises.
Riley Bennett amp; Egloff Law is a Business amp; Corporate law firm that offers an all-inclusive range of legal services for their business clients and is capable of handling the various issues any business can face. Based in Indianapolis, their attorneys have expertise in entity selection and formation, contract drafting and negotiation, and mergers and acquisitions. Their experience can help you establish a solid legal foundation for your business's future. See www.rbelaw.com. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proof of a Negative Not Required for Summary Judgment
Lawyer Media News |
2012/02/28 10:26
|
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 amp; 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: California can force inmates to submit DNA
Lawyer Media News |
2012/02/24 09:56
|
A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement’s interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.
The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.
The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.
The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state’s DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.
The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 “hits’’ connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.
Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn’t any more intrusive than fingerprinting. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strauss-Kahn has March court date in US
Lawyer Media News |
2012/02/23 09:48
|
A New York court has scheduled a hearing on a lawsuit filed by the woman who accused former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan hotel.
Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Strauss-Kahn last year, but his accuser has demanded damages in civil court.
The March 15 hearing will deal with issues that must be resolved before a trial, which has yet to be scheduled.
Strauss-Kahn wants the lawsuit dismissed because he says he had diplomatic immunity. He isn't required to attend the March court session.
The hotel maid who says she was attacked and forcibly sodomized by Strauss-Kahn is Nafissatou Diallo (na-fee-SAH'-too dee-AH'-loh). Her lawyer, Kenneth Thompson, says she is looking forward to her day in court and can't wait to get to trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court: Rights don't have to be read to prisoners
Lawyer Media News |
2012/02/21 10:07
|
The Supreme Court said Tuesday investigators don't have to read Miranda rights to inmates during jailhouse interrogations about crimes unrelated to their current incarceration.
The high court, on a 6-3 vote, overturned a federal appeals court decision throwing out prison inmate Randall Lee Fields' conviction, saying Fields was not in custody as defined by Miranda and therefore did not have to have his rights read to him.
Imprisonment alone is not enough to create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's majority opinion.
Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented and said the court's decision would limit the rights of prisoners.
Today, for people already in prison, the court finds it adequate for the police to say: 'You are free to terminate this interrogation and return to your cell,' Ginsburg said in her dissent. Such a statement is no substitute for one ensuring that an individual is aware of his rights.
Miranda rights come from a 1966 decision that involved police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
Previous court rulings have required Miranda warnings before police interrogations for people who are in custody, which is defined as when a reasonable person would think he cannot end the questioning and leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
