April 24, 2012
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP attorneys Jeffrey W. Henning and Joseph H. Langerak IV successfully dismissed a case filed against a client before the Indiana Department of Natural Resources related to riparian rights on the Ohio River. After RFPJ achieved favorable results for its client against the plaintiffs in the trial court on the very same issues, the plaintiffs attempted to find a more favorable venue and filed the administrative action. The administrative judge dismissed the case against our client and stopped the plaintiffs efforts to forum shop for a more favorable result. View the Order.
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson represents its clients in all forums of dispute resolution, including those before state and federal administrative bodies. In addition, like the client in this case, we represent various landowners and commercial businesses along the Ohio River in a variety of capacities, including land use, land transactions and litigation.
April 23, 2012
James D. Johnson and Max E. Fiester successfully defended an appeal of the trial court's award of summary judgment in their client's favor. They obtained summary judgment for their client and had a late count stricken from the plaintiff's complaint. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment and held that certain arguments, including a vendor's lien and equitable mortgage, were not properly brought against Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson's client. View the Appellate Opinion.
April 18, 2012
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP attorneys Joseph H. Langerak IV and Justin L. Griner, with financial loss analysis by attorney and CPA Paul C. Rudolph, prosecuted a breach of contract and fraud case on behalf of a commercial landlord client against a former tenant and guarantor. Our initial investigation revealed forgery and fraud, along with contract breaches. As a result, our client brought suit for not only breach of contract, but also claims under the Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act. Our client was awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling well over ½ million dollars. View the Judgment Entry.
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson’s success in this case is attributable to its ability to represent and understand commercial leasing matters from lease drafting and execution, through loss prevention and ultimately litigation. We represent commercial landlords and owners in all aspects of commercial leasing and ownership. As such, we have the ability to draft documents to protect our landlord/owner clients and provide our litigators with the upper hand if litigation is required.
September 26, 2011
Max E. Fiester received summary judgment on behalf of his client, an insurance company, in an insurance coverage case. A plaintiff who received a judgment in his favor against a home builder based on the builder’s work sought to recover from the builder’s insurance company, where the insurance policy excluded damages resulting from the builder’s work. Mr. Fiester sought summary judgment on behalf of his client, arguing the policy clearly excluded the types of damages sought by the Plaintiffs. The court agreed and granted judgment to Mr. Fiester’s client as a matter of law. View Summary Judgment
September 16, 2011
Angela L. Freel and Joseph H. Langerak defended a funeral home sued by the family of the deceased. The family claimed a botched burial caused them damages and they filed a lawsuit for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress, among other claims. Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP asserted on its client’s behalf that there was no wrong doing by the funeral home. After months of depositions and other investigation into the family’s claims, the trial court dismissed the claims through a series of motions filed by RFPJ. Those rulings were upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in a published decision, 947 N.E.2d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The family of the deceased asked the Indiana Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. On September 16, 2011, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. As a result, the Court of Appeals and this victory for RFPJ ’s client now stand as Indiana precedent for future cases. View Opinion
August 22, 2011
Stacy K. Newton, an attorney with Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP, obtained summary judgment on behalf of a Southern Indiana county in a case involving a driver who failed to stop at an intersection. The county argued that it did not own the road on which the sign was placed; rather that road and the sign were the property of the State of Indiana. The Spencer Circuit Court agreed and entered judgment on behalf of the county and its highway department. View Summary Judgment
August 19, 2011
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP attorney Stacy K. Newton and paralegal Tami H. Johnson received summary judgment in an Indiana Tax Court case involving a dog breeding business. RFPJ's clients were subjected to jeopardy tax assessments which resulted in a levy of all of their dogs, both those owned for breeding purposes as well as their house pets and farm dogs. The case has been rife with both legal and media controversy. In an extremely thorough decision, the Tax Court determined that the Indiana Attorney General's use of the jeopardy assessment procedure was inappropriate and declared the assessments void as a matter of law. View Summary Judgment
July 19, 2011
Ross E. Rudolph and Kyle R. Rudolph successfully ended a lawsuit brought by a participant of the Frog Follies who had fallen from a pickup truck bed and suffered a traumatic brain injury. While the cause of the accident was a driver who thought she had "hit the brake instead of the gas;" the Frog Follies and the Vanderburgh County 4-H Center had been sued for failing to have emergency personnel on-site and not providing care quick enough. Since the evidence established the plaintiff got immediate care from a trauma nurse and that an ambulance arrived in eight minutes, the court concluded the plaintiff could not prove her claims. View Summary Judgment
June 15, 2011
On the eve of trial, Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnons, LLP attorneys Ross E. Rudolph and Joseph H. Langerak IV, along with substantial assistance from paralegal Shawn M. O’Nan, obtained summary judgment sua sponte on claims for trespass to personal property and wrongful withholding based upon a Kentucky statute of limitations in a case pending in federal court in Owensboro, Kentucky. Click here to view The Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court. Previously, the court had granted summary judgment in favor of the client, River Metals Recycling, LLC on six of the eight counts contained in the Complaint. The case involved the issue of whether Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson's client violated the security interest of a bank when it acquired nearly 1,300 tons of mining equipment. As noted above, the court found in favor of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson's client.
June 7, 2011
A trial court's decision in favor of one of Stacy K. Newton's municipal clients was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals. An adult superstore had opened in the county in violation of a sexually oriented business licensing ordinance because it was located within 1,000 feet of a residence. The adult superstore claimed that the ordinance was ineffective because of how it was enacted and claimed the ordinance violated the First Amendment. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with the county and declared that the adult superstore was operating illegally, enjoining the adult superstore from conducting business. Click here to view the Notice of Issuance of Order or Opinion.
May 26, 2011
James D. Johnson and Max E. Fiester received summary judgment on behalf of their client in a COMPLEX REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION CASE INVOLVING SIX COUNTS AND AN ATTEMPT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL COUNTS LATE IN THE CASE. The case involved the purchase of farm property and the question of whether an actual purchase took place instead of merely a mortgage being provided. The counts against Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP’s client included, among others, fraud. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Fiester successfully obtained judgment in their client’s favor prior to trial. The court’s judgment found in favor of their client on all counts. Click here to view the Summary Judgment Entry.
May 20, 2011
Ross E. Rudolph and Joseph H. Langerak IV defended a Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP client -- the largest scrap processor in Kentucky and a wholly-owned venture of one of America’s largest scrap metal companies -- in an unemployment benefits case with a rather long history of appeals. The decision of a local agency was appealed to an unemployment commission referee, which was appealed to the Kentucky Unemployment Commission, which was appealed to the district court, which was ultimately appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The firm’s client prevailed in denying the former employee’s unemployment benefits because he quit voluntarily without cause. The former employee was required to repay all benefits. Rudolph and Langerak succeeded in upholding that denial by pointing out significant deficiencies in some of the appeals by the former employee. The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed and upheld the denial of benefits. Click here to view the Court of Appeals decision.
May 20, 2011
Stacy K. Newton received summary judgment on behalf of a municipal client who had terminated one of its street department employees for tardiness and insubordination. The employee sued, claiming that he had been terminated because of his political affiliation and also in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause under a “class of one” theory. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found in the municipality’s favor on both counts, dismissing the employee’s claims without requiring a trial. Click here to view the Motion for Summary Judgment.
April 20, 2011
Max E. Fiester received summary judgment on behalf of his clients, a home construction company and its member in her individual capacity, in a real estate transaction case. The Plaintiff, a real estate agency, claimed it was entitled to a commission for a referral of a prospective customer who chose to build a home. The agency claimed it was also entitled to payment on the basis of a promissory note it attempted to enforce. Mr. Fiester successfully argued there could be no commission because there was no commission agreement in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds, nor was the promissory note enforceable since it lacked consideration. The trial court agreed.
Click here to view the Summary Judgment Entry.
March 21, 2011
Stacy K. Newton obtained summary judgment in her municipal client’s favor on Americans with Disabilities Act accommodation, termination and retaliations claims brought by a former animal shelter employee. The employee claimed that she was a qualified individual with a disability who had not been accommodated in her job and had been terminated due to a wrist injury suffered at work or because she had complained about a co-employee’s purported harassment of her following the injury. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana awarded summary judgment to RFPJ’s client finding that the plaintiff was not disabled, was not qualified to perform her work, and had not been retaliated against. Click here to view the Summary Judgment Entry.
March 12, 2011
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP attorneys Jeffrey W. Henning and Joseph H. Langerak IV defended a lender after it received a $4.6 million judgment and was sued by its borrower’s subcontractors. Research revealed the subcontractors sued the lender in a way not yet addressed by Indiana case law – unjust enrichment claims for work the subcontractors performed on the real estate where the lender held a mortgage. The subcontractors claims were dismissed in a ruling that was upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals in a published decision, 935 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Thereafter, the subcontractors requested, and the lender opposed, Indiana Supreme Court review of the decision. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the decision, which now stands as Indiana precedent for future cases.
Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson’s success in this case is attributable to its ability to represent the lender from the loan inception, through litigation, through the borrower’s bankruptcy or through loan restructuring post bankruptcy. We represent lenders in all aspects of the lending industry. As such, we have the ability to draft documents to protect our lending clients and provide our litigators with the upper hand if litigation is required.
February 15, 2011
Stacy K. Newton and Max E. Fiester obtained summary judgment in their client’s favor involving a landowner’s claim against a city following the discovery of contamination on his property, which prevented him from selling it. He claimed the city was aware contaminated soil was placed on his property and failed to perform necessary testing of the soil prior to its placement on his property. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of the municipality based on city’s argument that the plaintiff failed to file a tort claims notice in a timely fashion. Click here to view the Summary Judgment Entry.
December 15, 2010
Ross E. Rudolph, James B. Godbold and Joseph H. Langerak IV of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully defended an appeal of the summary judgment they obtained on behalf of their defendant in the Marion County mass tort litigation docket (summary judgment first obtained in November 2009). In the underlying lawsuit, the Plaintiff/Appellant sued alleging our client exposed the Plaintiff’s deceased husband to asbestos while working as a contractor on a shared job site. They obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client based on the Indiana Construction Statute of Repose and the Plaintiff appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the award of summary judgment, finding the Plaintiff’s claims, which were brought 21 years after the last date of exposure, were time barred by the Construction Statute of Repose. Click here to view the Opinion.
Click here for news on this case published in the Dec. 15 edition of TheIndianaLawyer.com.
August 25, 2010
James D. Johnson and Angela L. Freel of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of their client, an emergency ambulance service company. Plaintiff was employed by the emergency ambulance service company as an advanced EMT. During her employment, her schedule III narcotic medication found its way into the hands of a third party and she was terminated. Plaintiff alleged she is unemployed and unable to become re-employed in her profession due to her wrongful termination. The Spencer Circuit Court granted the emergency ambulance service company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Click here to view Summary Judgment Entry.
July 30, 2010
James D. Johnson of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully obtained Summary Judgment on behalf of his client, a volunteer fire company. A fire occurred at a residence which enlisted the help of several neighboring fire companies to fight the fire. The plaintiff, a fire chief for a volunteer fire company, brought suit against two neighboring volunteer fire companies, one of which was Mr. Johnson’s client. The Plaintiff alleged the defendant volunteer fire companies were negligent and because of this negligence the Plaintiff entered the fiery structure in an attempt to save a missing firefighter, who tragically lost his life in the fire. Plaintiff recovered the body of the fallen firefighter and was attempting to move the body out of the building when he suffered a severe ankle injury that resulted in pain and suffering, lost wages, future medical expenses and future lost wages. However, the court applied the “fireman’s rule” which holds that a firefighter is not owed a duty of no negligence as he assumed the risks inherent to firefighting when entering the building. Accordingly, the Jefferson Circuit Court granted the Motions for Summary Judgment, denying the Plaintiff damages. Click here to view Summary Judgment entry.
April 15, 2010
James D. Johnson and James B. Godbold of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully defended an appeal of summary judgment (first obtained in August of 2009; Click here to view) on behalf of their defendant against a claim for defamation and intentional interference with an employment contract. The Plaintiff/Appellant, a professional golfer, brought suit against our client, another professional golfer. The Plaintiff alleged defamation based on statements by our client that the Plaintiff was “cheating the system” by playing in tournaments for which he was not eligible. The trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of our client, finding the client’s statements were true and he did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s employment contract. The Plaintiff appealed this award of summary judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the award of summary judgment on behalf of our client, finding the client’s statements were true. The court further found sufficient justification for any interference our client caused with the Plaintiff’s employment. The case citation was published as Melton v. Ousley, 925 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Click here to view the citation.
March 17, 2010
Stacy K. Newton recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of two separate municipal entities. The Plaintiff claimed that he was wrongfully arrested based upon an invalid protective order by three different law enforcement agencies on three different occasions. Judge Vicki L. Carmichael, Judge of the Clark Superior Court No. 1, ruled that the police officers acted in good faith and could not be held liable. In addition she ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to serve the required tort claims notice against one of the municipalities, and that city police departments are not legal entities apart from the cities that they serve and therefore are not proper Defendants to a tort claim. Click here to view judgment.
March 19, 2010
Stacy K. Newton of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP recently obtained an appellate reversal of the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on behalf of her defendant against a claim for personal injury. The Defendant, a local government entity, was sued by the Plaintiff for damages she received as a result of striking a tree with her car. The tree had fallen on one of the Defendant’s public roadways during a storm. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant should have removed the tree prior to the accident. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds of immunity for temporary conditions of a roadway due to weather under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The trial court denied the motion, however the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed that the Defendant was in fact entitled to immunity and could not be sued. Click here to view judgment. Following the Court's judgment, the Plaintiffs petitioned to have the case transferred to the Indiana Supreme Court. However, their petition was denied, thus upholding the verdict for the Municipal Defendants.
November 12, 2009
In a case of some import with respect to the mass tort asbestos litigation docket for Indiana, Ross E. Rudolph recently obtained summary judgment for a client based upon both the Indiana Products Liability Statute of Repose and the Construction Statute of Repose under the court’s rules permitting initial summary judgment. This decision should assist other entities in their efforts to extricate themselves from the Marion County mass tort docket when they are alleged to have been contractors on jobsites with asbestos plaintiffs but are able to show plaintiffs claims are time barred. Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Marion County Superior Court Two, Mass Tort Docket, Asbestos Section, Cause Number 98-357, Transaction ID 28015567, November 12, 2009. Click here to view judgment.
March 25, 2009
Angela L. Freel and Max E. Fiester of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP recently obtained a defense jury verdict on behalf of a tri-axle dump truck driver and his employer in a wrongful death action. The plaintiff, the estate of Ralph B. Riffle, Jr., brought suit against the defendants for damages related to the construction worksite death of Mr. Riffle wherein Mr. Riffle was backed over by a tri-axle dump truck while at the construction site. The defendants did not admit liability for the accident as they felt Mr. Riffle had placed himself in a dangerous position resulting in his own death. Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully argued that the defendants acted appropriately under the circumstances and that the defendants had properly maintained the tri-axle dump truck prior to the accident. Ultimately, the jury found Mr. Riffle was more than fifty percent (50%) liable for the accident, denying the plaintiff any monetary damages. Click here to view judgment.
Keith A. Sermersheim and Joseph H. Langerak of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP recently obtained a dismissal of the claims brought against our corporate client in an intentional injury action. Plaintiff, an employee and officer of the corporation, brought suit against the employer for damages related to injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the president’s intentional actions. The employee filed a claim against our client seeking damages. The court granted our client’s motion to dismiss. The case hinged on whether the corporation could be sued in State court or whether the plaintiff was limited to the exclusive remedies under the workman’s compensation act. Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and the client could not be sued by the plaintiff in State court.
March 8, 2008
Ross E. Rudolph and Joseph H. Langerak of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP recently obtained summary judgment on behalf of a third-party defendant in a personal injury action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Plaintiff, a railroad worker, brought suit against his employer for damages related to injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the railroad’s failure to maintain a track switch. The railroad filed a claim against our client, an entity that used the switch, seeking indemnification. The court granted our client summary judgment. The case hinged on whether our client owed any duty to the plaintiff or the railroad when it paid for repairs to the switch after the accident even though the switch was not on its property and was not typically maintained by the client. Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully argued that despite the subsequent repairs paid for by its client, and the client neither owed nor assumed any duty to the plaintiff or the railroad. Click here to view judgment.
May 1, 2008
Angela L. Freel of Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP recently obtained a defense jury verdict on behalf of a defendant and his employer in a personal injury action. The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, brought suit against the defendants for damages related to the husband's injuries in a rear-end automobile accident. The defendant did not admit liability for the accident as he felt the husband plaintiff had improperly cut him off. Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully argued that the defendant had faced a sudden emergency and had no other recourse except to rear-end the husband plaintiff, whom had cut in front of him at a stoplight. Ultimately, the jury found the husband plaintiff was more that fifty (50) percent liable for the accident, denying either plaintiff any monetary damages. Click here to view judgment.
James D. Johnson recently obtained a favorable jury verdict on behalf of the defendant in a personal injury action. Plaintiffs, a husband and wife, brought suit against the defendant for damages related to the wife's injuries in an auto accident. The court granted a directed verdict for the defendant against the plaintiff husband, which denied him any damages. Since the defendant admitted liability for the accident, the case hinged on what was a reasonable amount of damages for the plaintiff wife's injuries. Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson, LLP successfully argued that although, plaintiff wife did sustain some injuries in the auto accident, her treatment was limited and the injuries had limited affect on her life. Ultimately, the jury awarded limited, but reasonable damages to the plaintiff wife.
April 8, 2005
James D. Johnson and Joseph H. Langerak recently received summary judgment involving structured settlement funds that was and continues to be litigated in numerous states. In sum, they prevailed in arguing that the Indiana Structured Settlement Protection Act mandates that an Indiana court of competent jurisdiction consider petitions for approval of transfers of funds. They further prevailed in showing that the opposing party attempted to use arbitration to accomplish the transfer and violated the Act. Therefore, Rudolph, Fine, Porter & Johnson's client prevailed in showing the opposing party had no rights over the funds that were the subject of the litigation. Click here to view judgment.
