Janet Greenwell v. Aztar Indiana Gaming Corporation, Doing Business as Aztar Casino, Third-Party v. Matthew B. Kern and Gregory J. Loomis, Third-Party

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding, after discussing Swint, that “Greenwell’s malpractice claim against Aztar is entwined with Aztar’s indemnity claim against the doctors . . . , and since we must decide the latter, we might as well decide the former at the same time and head off a second ap- peal”
• “Greenwell’s malpractice claim against Aztar is entwined with Aztar’s indemnity claim . . . and since we must decide the latter, we might as well decide the former at the same time and head off a second appeal.”
• “this is one of those cases in which allowing an interlocutory appeal prevents rather than produces piecemeal appeals, while if the liability and indemnity issues did not overlap there would be only a limited economy from deciding them in one rather than two appeals”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).