Civil Trials and Appeals

Our firm has extensive experience in trying cases before both state and federal courts. Principal member Ron Waicukauski has tried more than sixty jury cases to verdict as lead counsel and has taught trial advocacy at the Indiana University Schools of Law in Bloomington and Indianapolis. In some instances, our lawyers have tried cases that have been handled by other lawyers until the case is ready for trial. If you or your client has a case that is expected to be tried and are looking for counsel with significant trial experience, our team of attorneys are able to step in as lead trial counsel. Contact us to discuss a partnership arrangement.

Our attorneys regularly speak to the Indianapolis Law Club on recent developments in Indiana law, including decisions by the state and federal appellate courts. We also publish a blog and podcast online regarding such recent developments in Indiana law.

In addition, our attorneys have served as judicial law clerks for appellate judges and currently serve in leadership positions with the Appellate Practice Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association. We are available to handle appeals in cases that were tried or handled by other lawyers prior to appeal. Our lawyers can work cooperatively with trial counsel to file an appeal or can do so independently.

Experienced Civil Appeals Attorneys

Our attorneys have argued numerous cases on appeal in both state and federal courts, including the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Several of our attorneys are also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. Recently, our firm represented clients in filing a petition for certiorari that was granted by the United States Supreme Court.

Representative Civil Appeals

Armour v. The city of Indianapolis, et al., 132 S. Ct. 2073 (2012) (granting a petition for certiorari filed on behalf of client homeowners who challenged City’s differential tax treatment on Equal Protection grounds, but affirming the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court that the City had a rational basis to distinguish between taxpayers who had paid sewer assessment in a lump sum and those who chose to pay in installments).

Zukerman et al. v. Montgomery, 945 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (reversing trial court’s enforcement of mediated settlement agreement where material and essential terms of the parties’ agreement were not reasonably definite and certain)

Arlton v. Schraut, 936 N.Ed.2d 831 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (reversing jury’s verdict for defendant in a medical malpractice case where trial court erroneously excluded evidence that plaintiff had sought to introduce at trial, including digital evidence showing changes to plaintiff’s retina after the defendant performed a laser procedure)

Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Robertson, et al., 2010 Ark. 241, 370 S.W.3d 241 (2010) (affirming trial court’s grant of class certification as to class action complaint against homeowners’ insurer who had common practice of depreciating the cost of labor when adjusting real-property damage).

Clary v. Lite Machines Corp., 850 N.E.2d 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (affirming jury verdict of $3,612,574.00 for client in legal malpractice case, which alleged legal malpractice in underlying products liability claim)

GKN v. Starnes, Trucking, Inc., 798 N.E.2d 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment for subcontractor on client contractor’s indemnity claim and in denying contractor’s motion for partial summary judgment where contract clearly and unequivocally identified the subject of subcontractor’s indemnification of contractor for contractor’s own negligence)

Contact Us for a Complimentary Consultation

Our attorneys have extensive experience representing individuals and companies. We welcome the opportunity to assist you.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Contacting this law firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Do not provide confidential information until an attorney-client relationship has been established.