Search Results for 25

Products Liability Cases – Feb. 25

The Indiana Product Liability Act is the exclusive mechanism to evaluate claims of personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by products. The Act’s unique statutory regime selectively borrows concepts from the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 402A, and the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability, and it rejects strict liability concepts for claims of design and warning defects. The Act also significantly alters prior Indiana common law governing product liability actions. This seminar will explore these features of the Act, and will address opportunities and procedural mechanisms for early resolution of product liability actions, including the narrowing of issues through motion practice, tailored case management orders, and efficient discovery practices designed to control and reduce costs.

FACULTY:
Dean T. BarnhardBarnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis
Joseph R. AlbertsDow AgroSciences, Indianapolis
Mathew Scott Winings, Cummins, Inc., Indianapolis

______________________________________________________________

PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES
3 CLE – Wednesday, February 25, 2015   1:15 P.M. – 4:30 P.M.

Live In-Person Seminar
– ICLEF Conference Facility, Indianapolis

Live Individual Webcast
– From Your Home or Office Computer

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

 

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

ICLEF Contributes $2500 to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation

ICLEF is pleased to announce a contribution of $2500 to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation in support of the Neil E. Shook Scholarship Fund.  The Indianapolis Bar Foundation website lists the Neil E. Shook Scholarship as being available to 2nd year Robert H. McKinney School of Law students who exhibit the following characteristics: 1. academic proficiency; 2. interest in creditors’ rights and bankruptcy law; 3. financial need; 4. exceptional leader­ship skills; 5. demonstrated commitment to excellence; 6. proponent of civility in the legal profession.

We are delighted to be able to provide financial support to this important scholarship fund.

Click here if you would like to make a donation to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in News0 Comments

Family Law Case Review 2/25/11

Case: Stephanie L. Cotton v. Charles C. Cotton

Case Summary by Mike Kohlhaas, Bingham McHale LLP

HELD: To comply with the Indiana Trial Rules and Due Process, the summons served with a petition for dissolution of marriage must include a clear statement to the Respondent of the risk of default for failure to appear or otherwise respond.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Husband and Wife married in 2002. In March 2009, Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. Wife was served with a summons and copy of the petition, but she did not appear personally or by counsel, nor did she respond to the petition. Husband continued to live in the marital residence for five months after filing, leading Wife to believe that the parties were working on reconciliation and that Husband was not pushing finalization of the dissolution.

However, in September 2009, Husband and his counsel attended a final hearing. Wife had not appeared personally or by counsel, and she received no notice of the final hearing. In Wife’s absence, and following only Husband’s testimony, the trial court defaulted Wife and entered a final dissolution decree that included an award of joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ son, and divided the marital estate. Wife subsequently learned of the Decree, hired counsel, and filed a T.R. 60 motion to set aside the Decree, which was denied. Wife appealed.

On appeal, Wife contended that the Decree was void because it was entered without personal jurisdiction over her, due to insufficiency of process; specifically, the summons used by Husband included language to Wife that she “may personally appear” and that “[y]ou must appear before the Court if directed to do so pursuant to a Notice, Order of the Court, or Subpoena,” but no language articulating a risk of default for doing nothing. In reviewing the summons, the Court of Appeals summarized the applicable law of insufficiency of process, and concluded: “We hold that due process requires that, at a minimum, a respondent in a dissolution proceeding be notified of the risk of default for failure to appear or otherwise respond.”

In this instance, the subject summons presented Wife with the option of appearing or responding to the petition, but did not provide notice to her that the trial court could take further and final action without further notice to her. The Court of Appeals added, “the command of Trial Rule 4(C)(5), grounded in due process, is that the respondent in a dissolution proceeding must be given notice in a ‘clear statement’ of the risk of default for failure to appear or other respond . . . ” Concluding that the subject summons did not comply with Trial Rule 4(C)(5), or the Due Process Clause, the dissolution decree was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

To view the text of this opinion in its entirety, click here: Stephanie L. Cotton v. Charles C. Cotton

Posted in Family Law Case Review0 Comments

I.P. Blog: Vizio Accused of Spying on Users of its Smart TVs, Selling Ill-Gotten Data

By: Paul B. Overhauser  Publisher: Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Hammond, Indiana – Plaintiff Stanley Pagorek of Dyer, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, California and Cognitive Media Networks, Inc. of San Francisco, California monitor, track and report viewing habits and information about devices attached to home networks for profit. Pagorek seeks class-action status for this Indiana litigation.

Defendant Vizio produces and sells internet-capable televisions. It also offers audio and entertainment products, including sound bars, tablets, DVD players and Blu-ray players. Vizio has a controlling stake in Defendant Cognitive, an advertising company.

Defendants are accused of surreptitiously including tracking software on more than 10 million Vizio high-definition, internet-connected televisions (sometimes known as “smart TVs”). The functionality of the software includes Cognitive’s content-recognition capabilities.

According to the lawsuit, filed by intellectual property lawyers for Pagorek and the putative class, the tracking software is activated by default, most customers would not be made aware of it in the process of setting up their TVs and, for those who were, disabling the software is less than intuitive. The software enables Vizio to monitor and identify the viewing habits of those smart TV customers. The complaint also indicates that the analysis done by the tracking software enables Vizio to infer with reasonable certainty which person is watching what programming.

That information is then provided to third-party advertisers and content providers. Those third parties are then able to customize the advertising and other content displayed to the smart TV customers not only on the Vizio smart TV, but also on any other “smart” device, such as smartphones, tablet computers, laptop computers and desktop computers, that is connected to the same internet protocol address as the Vizio smart TV.

In this complaint, the following is alleged:
• Count One: Violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710)
• Count Two: Violation of the Prohibition of Disclosure by Persons Providing Video Recording Sales or Rentals Without Written Consent (Cal. Civ. Code § 1799.3)
• Count Three: Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Civ. Code § 17200, et seq.)
• Count Four: Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.)
• Count Five: Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (Ind. Code §§ 24-5-0.5, et seq.)
• Count Six: Unjust Enrichment
• Count Seven: Fraud by Omission
• Count Eight: Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability
• Count Nine: Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511)

Plaintiff Pagorek, on behalf of himself and the other members of the proposed class, requests damages, injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

The case was assigned to Judge Jon DeGuillio and Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00472-JD-PRC.

Complaint

 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

By: Paul B. Overhauser, Publisher, Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC provides intellectual property services including patents, trademarks, copyrights and infringement litigation. Whether you’re an entrepreneur launching your first invention or a corporation looking for a litigation specialist, we have the legal experience to meet your goals.

To learn more about how Overhauser Law Offices can help you, browse our website to meet our lawyers and peruse our practice areas.  Then contact us, and we’ll put our expert team to work for you.

© 2015

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Intellectual Property Blog0 Comments

Having trouble logging in?Visit our Support section.

Subscribe

Contact Us

ICLEF
230 East Ohio Street
Suite #300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: 317-637-9102
Fax: 317-633-8780
E-mail: iclef@iclef.org