Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, LLPCo-Managing Partner

Brian Paul Williams

About Brian Paul Williams

Brian Paul Williams is a lawyer practicing federal practice, contract law, litigation and 1 other area of law. Brian received a A.B. degree from Indiana University in 1978, and has been licensed for 45 years. Brian practices at Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, LLP in Evansville, IN.

Awards

Reviews for Brian

This lawyer does not have any client reviews on Lawyers.com yet

Write a Review

Services

Areas of Law

  • Litigation
  • Other 3
    • Federal Practice
    • Contract Law
    • Economic Development

Practice Details

  • Payment Information
    Payment & Cost Features
    Fixed hourly rates
    Fixed fees available
    Accepted Credit Cards
    MasterCard
    Visa
  • Firm Information
    Position
    Co-Managing Partner
    Firm Name
    Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, LLP
  • Representative Cases & Transactions
    Cases
    Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. d/b/a Presbytery of Ohio Valley, d/b/a Ohio Valley Presbytery
    Synod of Lincoln Trails of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Inc., d/b/a Synod of Lincoln Trails, Inc. v. OPC, Inc. f/k/a Olivet Presbyterian Church, Inc., d/b/a Olivet Presbyterian Church, d/b/a Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church,
    d/b/a Olivet Presbyterian Church of Evansville
    Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Evansville, Inc., d/b/a Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church
    Evangelical Presbyterian Church, d/b/a Evangelical Presbyterian Church of America, 940 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Vacated)
    reversed
    rem
    ed by the Indiana Supreme Court, 973 N.E.2d 1099, 2012 Ind. LEXIS 638 (Ind. 2012)
    cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2022 (U.S. 2013)
    Marshall & Ilsley Trust Company, N.A. v. Woodward, 848 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind.App. Jun 16,2006) –
    As a matter of first impression, a remote contingent beneficiary who would receive trust principal only if settler's children died childless was entitled to trust accounting
    Schmitt v. U.S., 2003 WL 21057368, (S.D.Ind. Mar 05,2003) –
    Judgment granted for class of owners against government entitling l
    owners to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
    Tinner v. United Insurance Co. of America, 123 S.Ct. 1623 (2003) –
    Petition for writ of certiori to the United States Supreme Court from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied
    Tinner v. United Insurance Co. of America, 308 F.3d 697, (7th Cir.(Ind.) Oct 10, 2002) –
    African-American employee could not “piggyback” Title VII claims relating to a series of alleged discrete discriminatory acts to a timely filed wrongful termination claim to form a continuing violation claim
    employer's proffered reasons for use of a preemptory challenge to eliminate member of jury panel were race neutral
    not pretextual
    Schmitt v. U.S., 203 F.R.D. 387, (S.D.Ind. Mar 22, 2001) –
    L
    owners held fee simple interest in railroad right-of-way for which class certification granted in suit against government for taking without just compensation
    Clevel
    v. Porca Co., 38 F.3d 289, (7th Cir.(Ind.) Sep 29, 1994) –
    Former employees of Emge Packing Company failed in their attempt to enforce an arbitration order which held that the company had breached its collective bargaining agreement
    breached the pension plan for hourly employees
    Pedro Enterprises, Inc. v. Perdue, 998 F.2d 491, (7th Cir.(Ind.) Jul 07, 1993) –
    Under ERISA's regulation of qualified profit-sharing plans, anti-nuptial agreements do not waive spouse's right to survivor benefits
    Union Federal Sav. Bank v. Chantilly Farms, Inc., 556 N.E.2d 9, (Ind.App. 1 Dist. Jun 26, 1990) –
    Banks seek declaratory judgment of their “liability, if any” under applicable statutes for conversion of checks payable to corporation on endorsement of corporate general manager
    Schlumberger Tech v. Blaker, 859 F.2d 512, (7th Cir.(Ind.) 1988) –
    Former employee was not entitled to benefits since they were contingent upon former employee following non-compete covenant
    Romain v. A. Howard Wholesale Co., 506 N.E.2d 1124 (Ind.Ct.App. 1987) –
    Contract interpretation for method of exercising option by mailing the option-exercise payment on the date of the option's expiration
    City of Evansville v. International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 357, 516 N.E.2d 57 (Ind. 1987) –
    The Indiana Supreme Court held that the statute establishing a merit system for police
    fire department was the exclusive statutory method by which a city could establish a merit system for its fire or police departments
    Schlumberger Well v. Blaker, 623 F.Supp. 1310 (S.D.Ind. 1985) –
    Payment of approximately $100,000 upon termination of manager was not substantial consideration for compliance with a covenant not to compete for geographical restraint encompassing the entire North American continent.

Experience

  • Bar Admission & Memberships
    Admissions
    1981, Indiana
    Memberships
    American Bar Association (Business Law Section, Litigation Section, Uniform Commercial Code Subcommittee, Subcommittee on Electronic Commercial Practices)
    Indiana State Bar Association (Federal Judiciary Committee)
    Evansville Bar Association (Former President and Board Member).
  • Education & Certifications
    Law School
    Indiana University
    Class of 1981
    J.D.
    Other Education
    Indiana University
    Class of 1978
    A.B.
Case type is required.
I am is required.
First name is required.
Last name is required.
A valid zip code is required.
Country is required.
State is required.
A valid city is required.
A valid email address is required.
A valid phone number is required.
Message is required.
0/1000 characters

By clicking the Submit button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Lawyers.com and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA. See Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Thank you! Your message has been successfully sent.

For your records, a copy of this email has been sent to test@test.com.

Summary of Your Message
Case Type:
I am a/an:
First Name:
Last Name:
City:
Zip Code or Postal Code:
State:
Country:
Phone Number:
Message: