The Indiana Supreme Court decides a case important to personal injury lawyers.
As an attorney, two things hold true — you’re busy, and you’re more likely to win cases when you’re freed up to focus on the areas you know best. That’s where I come in. I handle your appeals, legal writing, and research so you can concentrate on your bread and butter. Due to my extensive experience, I can likely obtain a resolution more quickly and economically than you could on your own, and I happily work on behalf of attorneys and individuals alike.
Making a large impact through small changes is something I always strived to do. I found that by helping my clients obtain justice, I was also paving the way for others facing similar situations. No other type of case can positively affect the law quite like an appeal.
Everyone remembers Plessy v. Ferguson. If the verdict had not been overturned by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Brown v. Board of Education case, the course of history would’ve been much different.
You see, the law is not always as it appears. It can be interpreted in a variety of ways, and everyday citizens live with the consequences of whatever interpretation the courts decide to take. Appeals exist so that the judicial system is held accountable for enforcing laws in the intended way. And if a ruling is overturned in your case, it can affect the outcomes of other cases for years to come.
It’s not right for you to pay an unfair amount of alimony or child support, or for you to not receive the custody you deserve.
Suffering due to someone else’s negligence is trying enough. You should not have to deal with injustice on top of it.
An arrest can impact your entire life. One error in evidence could leave you with a permanent criminal record or even time in jail.
Client requested more child support from the children's father. He made $1,391.00/week before quitting his job, but the judge claimed his potential income was only $500/week because he was no longer working.
Initial child support calculation was ruled incorrect.
The judge sentenced the defendant to five years of community corrections. However, the State had conceded that four years was the maximum amount of time that could be served.
Defendant's sentence was reduced by a full year.