Legal Opinion

Lafayette Orthopedic Clinic v. Guardianship of Bell

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 4, 1996No. 23A01-9511-CV-376PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

STATON, Judge.

Lafayette Orthopedic Clinic (“the Clinic”) appeals the trial court’s determination that the Clinic is responsible for a portion of the attorney fees generated from a recovery in favor of the Guardianship of Arthur Bell. The Clinic raises one issue for our review which we restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion by determining that the Guardianship’s recovery constituted a “common fund.”

We reverse and remand.

The facts most favorable to the judgment reveal that Bell was injured by a third party, an independent tortfeasor. Bell sought and received treatment…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Boeing Co. v. Van GemertSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Bayh v. SonnenburgIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Skelton v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
  4. McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1989

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Harco, Inc. of Indianapolis v. Plainfield Interstate Family Dining AssociatesIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  2. Cagle v. FlickDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API