loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Peter J. Rusthoven
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7299

F 317-231-7433

OVERVIEW

Peter J. Rusthoven
Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P 317-231-7299

F 317-231-7433

Peter J. Rusthoven, a partner in the Indianapolis office, has a multi-dimensional practice. His business experience includes transactional and corporate governance work, in areas ranging from manufacturing to publishing to healthcare.

OVERVIEW

Peter J. Rusthoven Partner

Indianapolis

11 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3535

P : 317-231-7299

Peter J. Rusthoven, a partner in the Indianapolis office, has a multi-dimensional practice. His business experience includes transactional and corporate governance work, in areas ranging from manufacturing to publishing to healthcare.

Peter was active in drafting Indiana's corporation statute and official comments and has frequently written and spoken on corporate change-of-control issues. In the governmental services area, he is experienced in gaming and alcoholic beverage licensing and other regulatory and legislative services matters.

Peter's litigation practice focuses on appellate and trial-level advocacy involving significant legal issues. He had a lead role in briefing the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark CTS case (upholding the constitutionality of an Indiana change-of-control law), and represented America's largest insurance associations defending holding-company acts in multi-state litigation. Other examples of his trial and appellate advocacy involve areas as diverse as banking, contract, environmental, labor, and utilities law (including the firm's 1999 Indiana Supreme Court victory in the SBC/Ameritech merger case).

Since 2014, Peter has been recognized on the Indiana Super Lawyers list for his work in appellate, business/corporate and civil litigation defense law. Peter has also been selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America, in 2016 he was also named a "Lawyer of the Year" for his work in appellate and gaming law. He has also been recognized in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business since 2011.

Peter is a 1973 magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa as a junior. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, in 1976 from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was associate counsel to the president of the United States from 1981 to 1985 and in 1986 was counsel to the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. In 1998, he was a candidate for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator from Indiana. He is a board member of the Educational CHOICE Charitable Trust and regularly appears on television and radio programs on public and political affairs.

Peter is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States; the Supreme Court of Indiana; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits; and the U.S. District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana.

EXPERIENCE
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Anheuser-Busch in a case that arose as a result of a temporary Indiana state regulation that permitted beer distributors to engage in "transshipping," a practice in which beer distributors were permitted to sell outside of the territory that had been designated for them by the alcohol brewing companies. After the regulation expired, the beer distributors filed suit against the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission and the various brewing companies. Barnes & Thornburg represented Anheuser-Busch's interests in the litigation. As a major brewing company, Anheuser-Busch's interests were aligned with the position of the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission because the temporary rule had prevented Anheuser-Busch from enforcing the territories it had negotiated with the beer distributors. Barnes & Thornburg assisted Anheuser-Busch in defending the expiration of the law from the distributors' challenge, and succeeded in obtaining judgment in favor of our Client. The beer distributors appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment of Marion Superior Court. Little Bev. Co. v. DePrez, 777 N.E.2d74 (Ind. App. 2002).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented parties to probate action. On opponent's appeal of trial court’s grant of guardianship petition, the court affirmed decision in favor of our clients. Hickman v. Hickman (In re Hickman), No. 53A01-0211-CV-446 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
  • Barnes & Thornburg defended employer against Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. On appeal, the court dismissed employee’s appeal, preserving the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for our client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP acted as Indiana counsel to a New York Stock Exchange listed public company organized under Indiana law in connection with the spin-off of two operating divisions to its shareholders, resulting in the formation of two additional public companies formed under Indiana law. We also advised the client in connection with a follow-up one for two reverse stock split, which under Indiana law did not require shareholder approval.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented 1st Source Bank as personal representative in a Supreme Court of Indiana case affirming the trial court’s decision that the decedent’s will was properly admitted to probate, which had been reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the method of will execution used in the case was valid. This is the leading Indiana case on the requirements for valid will execution. Estate of Dellinger v. 1st Source Bank, 793 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. 2003).
  • Defended DePuy in appeal of products liability claim; court affirmed lower court's grant of summary judgment for our client.
  • In DePuy Orthopaedics, et al. v. Travis Brown, et al., Case No. 49A02-1304-CT-00332 (Ind. Ct. App. May 30, 2014), the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a decision from the Marion County Superior Court denying a forum non conveniens motion in a products liability action brought in Indiana by nineteen non-Indiana plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who were residents of Virginia and Mississippi, were implanted with a hip prosthesis in surgeries that took place in either Mississippi or Virginia. The prosthesis was designed and manufactured in Leeds, England. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C), arguing that Marion County, Indiana is not a convenient forum in which to litigate these claims. The trial court denied the motion, but granted Defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal. On May 30, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, noting that the inconvenience of securing out-of-state non-party witnesses and other discovery, the conflict in products liability law among Indiana, Virginia and Mississippi, and the availability of a more convenient forum all warranted dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs have petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for review.
  • Peter Rusthoven, Joe Eaton and Paul Jefferson of the Indianapolis, Indiana office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP represented Speedway SuperAmerica LLC in Speedway SuperAmerica LLC v. Gerald and Madeline Holmes.

    In a decision handed down on May 15, the Indiana Supreme Court vacated an earlier judgment in favor of the plaintiff who claimed he was injured by slipping on diesel fuel at a Speedway gas station in 2000 because of a pair of jeans introduced as evidence on the first day of trial. Those jeans, which the plaintiff said he was wearing the day of the accident, were introduced by the plaintiff without communicating the discovery to the defendant. Post-trial testing, ordered after Speedway filed a Motion to conduct it, determined not only that the stain on the jeans was not diesel fuel, but that the jeans were not manufactured at the time of the fall. The trial court denied Speedway's post-trial motions. Speedway appealed the trial court decision and Indiana Court of Appeals' affirmation denying Speedway's motion to correct the error and for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rules 59 and 60 and its request for relief under T.R. 60(B)(2) alleging newly discovered evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court has reversed the order of the trial court and the case has been remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and conduct a new trial.
  • Defended manufacturer of blood glucose meters and test strips against claims of patent infringement in a multi-billion dollar market. The case settled after the plaintiffs potential recovery was reduced by partial summary judgments of laches and invalidity and a motion in limine barring a substantial portion of the plaintiffs remaining damages claim.
  • Represented employer against claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
  • Represented liquidation trustee in dispute over claims filed by claimants holding perfected statutory mechanics' liens against debtor's steel mill facility. The district court held that our client’s objections were untimely, but the Seventh Circuit reversed and held in favor of client.
  • Represented Riverboat Development in challenge to tax withholding requirements on income it passed through to shareholders.
  • Represented SBC in Kankakee Valley's appeal of IURC ruling denying Kankakee Valley's motion to dismiss complaint requesting review of compensation for use of Kankakee Valley's utility poles.
  • Represented SBC seeking preliminary injunction against IURC on allegations that federal law preempted Commission’s order. On appeal, the court affirmed entry of judgment for our client.
  • Represented seller of land in dispute with distant purchaser over clean up costs under the Indiana Underground Storage Tank Act.
  • The State of Indiana, a Barnes & Thornburg client, will now be able to seek up to $177 million in damages against IBM for breaches of a $1.6 billion services agreement to help enhance the state’s public welfare system.

    The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling on Feb. 13, saying that IBM fell short of what it promised. In her majority opinion, Chief Judge Nancy H. Vaidik wrote: “In the most basic aspect of the contract – providing timely services to the poor – IBM failed.”

    The Court also affirmed that no deferred fees ($43 million) were owed to IBM and reversed two separate awards of prejudgment interest and fees to IBM of more than $13 million; awards on equipment fees and assignment fees for IBM were affirmed, to be offset by the State’s damages.

    The case now goes back to Marion County Superior Court to determine the State’s damages.

    Barnes & Thornburg partners Peter Rusthoven and John Maley headed a litigation team that included Curt Greene, Meredith White, Kyle LeClere, Roxanne Larrison and multiple others throughout several offices.
  • This lawsuit dealt with a dispute over an asset purchase agreement between Maryland parties relating to a Maryland race track. As a lawsuit in Maryland was approaching trial, Centaur Rosecraft filed a lawsuit in Indiana, and obtained a preliminary injunction from the Indiana trial court forbidding the parties to take action in the Maryland lawsuit. Representing Cloverleaf Enterprises, Barnes & Thornburg appealed the preliminary injunction. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, and Centaur Rosecroft then abandoned the lawsuit. The appellate opinion is the leading case in Indiana on the standard for enjoining parties from litigating in another state. Cloverleaf Enters. v. Centaur Rosecroft, LLC, 815 N.E.2d 513 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.