Source: https://www.bgdlegal.com/blog/2009/03
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 18:19:40+00:00

Document:
On January 22, 2009, the Supreme Court of Kentucky refused to enforce a purported agreement to arbitrate in part because the agreement in question did not specify Kentucky as the location of the arbitration. Ally Cat, LLC v. Chauvin, 274 S.W.3d 451 (Ky. 2009).
On Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed issues of statutory construction in two cases.
On Wednesday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued two opinions – one addressing issues pertaining to negligence claims, the other addressing the scope of grandparent custody and visitation rights.
As described in our earlier alert of February 18, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Act) establishes a new COBRA subsidy for qualified COBRA beneficiaries who involuntarily lose their jobs between September 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009 and provides a second special election opportunity for individuals who lost group health plan coverage due to an involuntary termination between September 1, 2008 and February 16, 2009 to elect continuation coverage. The Act also requires employers and group health plans to provide notice of the availability of the COBRA subsidy and special election periods for COBRA continuation coverage.
In two cases late this week, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed two issues of trial procedure.
Applying the United States Supreme Court’s standards for addressing a defendant's competence to act pro se at trial, the Indiana Supreme Court has unanimously affirmed the convictions of Ahmad Edwards, whose appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court last year established those standards.
On Tuesday, March 10, 2009, Democrats introduced the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in both Houses of Congress. The EFCA, which has been the subject of countless debate, would amend the National Labor Relations Act and make it easier and quicker for workers to unionize.
Tuesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals explained the manner in which photographic evidence that must speak for itself may be admitted under the “silent witness” theory.
Lawyers want to know “what’s going on” in the practice of representing lawyers. Well, not all lawyers but some ask from time to time if there are any trends. A variation of the question is something on the order of: is the Court handing out tougher sanctions or has the Disciplinary Commission become more aggressive?
Last Friday, in Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Department of Revenue, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed an issue of first impression in Indiana law: whether, and to what extent, issue preclusion applies in tax cases.
With the NCAA basketball tournaments in full swing, Hoosier basketball purists are quick to point out the blueprint of the tourney, including many of the fabled monikers, can be traced to the grand old Indiana high school tournament.However, the intellectual property that goes with it, namely the catchy trademarks we hear over and over this time of year, is another story.
On Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down two opinions concerning the modification of child support orders to reflect limitations on earning capacity while incarcerated, further extending the rationale it expressed in Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2007).
On Wednesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Allen v. Buss that, after 15 years of legal battles, a man sentenced to death in 1988 was entitled to a court hearing to determine whether he was mentally retarded and could not be executed.
On Wednesday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued four opinions involving judicial and attorney disciplinary proceedings.
On Monday, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed whether the act of seeking class certification enables putative class members to avoid compliance with the Wage Claims Act’s requirement that individuals first submit their claims to the Department of Labor. The court held that it does not.
On Tuesday, the Indiana Supreme Court issued three opinions.
In Atterholt v. Herbst, the Court addressed what proof the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund may submit at a trial on damages when liability has already been established by a medical service provider’s settlement with the claimant.
This week, the Indiana Supreme Court issued two Orders affecting cases in which the Court had granted transfer.
Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in Indiana law: whether a babysitter may avail himself of the parental privilege defense for disciplining a child in his care.
Monday, the Indiana Supreme Court, in this per curiam opinion, disbarred Indianapolis attorney Robert E. Lehman after Lehman pled guilty to one count of willfully making a false tax return.
At 3 p.m. (EST) on Tuesday, March 3, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear argument in Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Patrick.
On Thursday, March 4, beginning at 9 a.m., the Indiana Supreme Court will hear two arguments.
On February 17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (The “Stimulus Bill”). The following is a summary of provisions that you may find of interest.
As previously examined in our article “Recent Changes to COBRA Require Immediate Attention,” President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 into law on February 17, 2009. The Act provides involuntarily terminated eligible individuals with a premium reduction subsidy and requires employers to provide additional COBRA notices. These changes are effective immediately.
The following list includes some of the actions that you, as an employer, should take to comply with the new COBRA rules enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. As detailed in our article “Recent Changes to COBRA Require Immediate Attention,” the Act makes several significant changes to COBRA which may require your immediate attention.
In our last letter, we discussed the “Battle of the Forms”, where a contract is created through the process of exchanging inconsistent forms. Each party believes their form is controlling but one or both later find that not to be true. However, binding contractual obligations can arise even if no written document is ever drafted, much less signed.
All employers are required by law to verify the identity and employment authorization of each person they hire for employment in the United States. Form I-9 is the federal form employers are required to complete to satisfy their verification obligation.
Kentucky taxpayers saw their fair share of legislative, administrative and judicial income tax developments in 2008. A comprehensive survey and in-depth analysis of these changes could very well fill the pages of a paperback novel, but here we’ll just try to hit some of the highlights.
As the old saying goes, when a door closes, a window also opens. With the state of today’s economy, many people probably feel like doors have closed. However, there are some great "windows" now opening in the estate and gift planning areas.
On Wednesday, March 4, 2009, the Indiana Supreme Court held that property owners are not entitled to consequential damages for diminished traffic flows resulting from street reconfigurations or limitations imposed on a property from expanding existing points of ingress or egress.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.