This case teaches that the contemporaneous document doctrine may have implications that extend far beyond providing guidance for contract interpretation.

This case points out an issue for courts, more than litigants. But it is important for us to know it, so that we can make sure that courts address issues properly.

Personal Injury is an umbrella term that encompasses any physical injuries as well emotional or psychological damage that occurred as the result of an accident or incident. Personal Injury lawsuits are common as the injured have rights and the incentive to protect them.

Defendants routinely argue that plaintiffs need expert testimony to show that a particular form of damage was caused by a particular tortious act. This case shows that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and plaintiffs can make that same argument, too.

Business records are evidence in many kinds of proceedings. And it appears that there is some disagreement in Indiana’s appellate courts regarding what constitutes a business record and what does not.

Some kinds of speech are protected by various legal privileges. The most powerful of these privileges is the absolute privilege because it is a complete defense to a claim based on that speech.

Indiana has enacted a Good Samaritan Law (GSL) that immunizes people who are responding to emergencies with emergency care. This case questions how broadly those immunities apply.

You may think that a favorable outcome in a case is res judicata and prevents relitigating previously litigated issues. But while this is generally true, it is not a universal truth.

The violation of a statutory duty can be enforced through a private right of action or that the violation demonstrates a violation of a common-law duty of care. This difference can have a meaningful difference in litigation, as this case shows.

Apparently, lawsuits involving dangerous horses are governed by a different set of rules than claims involving other dangerous animals if the riders are engaged in a sporting activity at the time of the injury.

Ransomware and other cyberattacks are a consistent threat to businesses. Some buy cyberattack insurance in order to share that risk. But others do not. The question posed by this case is whether those others may be covered by other kinds of insurance.

We do not normally address criminal cases (unless they deal with the Rules of Evidence), but sometimes there are exceptions. And the intersection between smartphones and self-incrimination is one of those exceptions.

The 487 Broadway Company agreed to buy a building from Calumet Township but before closing, the Township removed some lighted signs, pictures and artifacts causing damage to the building. 487 Broadway sued for negligence and breach of contract.

The issue of excusable neglect often arises in the context of motions under Rule 60(B). And this case shows that when proving excusable neglect, you need to provide more than just argument.

People are always entitled to due process before their property is taken away in a judicial proceeding. But this begs the question—what process is due in a particular case?

Not every lawyer has litigated a class action, and they are a different kind of animal. In order to certify a case as a class action, you need to convince the court that the case is amenable to class certification.

The recent news has discussed whether various parties have standing to challenge the 2020 presidential election in various federal courts. But federal courts are not alone in caring about standing, as this case shows.

As we all know, Indiana has strict deadlines when it comes to summary judgment, and they are strictly enforced. But this case shows that the Court of Appeals will not elevate form over substance on this deadline.

The defendants in this case altered medical records and failed to disclose this multiple times. When the plaintiffs eventually discovered this, they filed suit.

This case involves an unusual situation—a child suing his father for impregnating his mother. These kinds of lawsuits are normally not allowed because Indiana does not recognize a claim for wrongful life. But the situation is different when the father is a physician who lied to the mother about her artificial insemination.