Mr. John David Hoover, Attorney

John David Hoover

John David Hoover is a founding partner with Hoover Hull LLP. He practices in the areas of commercial litigation, professional liability (including medical and legal malpractice defense), professional peer review, officer and director defense, campaign and election law, and counseling buyers and sellers on the purchase and sale of fine art items. John has the highest professional rating (AV) provided by Martindale Hubbell. He is a member of the International Network of Boutique Law Firms.

Relevant Experience

• Represents closely held companies in business disputes involving breach of contract, business torts, restrictive covenants, trade secrets, and shareholder, officer and director litigation.
• Represents physicians and attorneys in professional
  negligence actions.
• Represents individuals, galleries, and sovereign nations in disputes involving the authenticity and ownership of fine art works.
• Represents and counsels individual candidates and political parties on issues involving Indiana constitutional and election law.
• Represents healthcare professionals in credentialing and
  licensing disputes.

Education and Clerkships

John received his B.A. degree from Vanderbilt University in 1973, and received his J.D., cum laude, from Indiana University School of Law Indianapolis in 1980. John served as Associate Editor of the Indiana Law Review. He served as law clerk to The Honorable Robert Lybrook, Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals, while attending law school, and as a law clerk to The Honorable Gene E. Brooks, Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana from October 1979 through April 1981.

Publications and Speaking Engagements

John has been a frequent speaker on medical malpractice law, medical peer review law, and the sale and purchase of fine art items. Speaker: National Business Institute, 1987, Medical Malpractice in Indiana, Obstetrical Negligence; Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, 1989, International Trade 1989, Protecting Clients Who Purchase Foreign Art and Artifacts; Seminars for Indiana Medico/Legal Bar Associations, August 1990, Legal Forum for Hospital Attorneys and Administrators. He has published the following: The Medical Malpractice Act: Is the Cap Constitutional?, Indiana Civil Litigation Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2004); Conflicts of Interest in the Defense of Medical Malpractice Cases, Federation of Defense and Corporate Council Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 1, page 95 (1999).

Professional Associations, Memberships and Community Service

John serves on the Board of Trustees of the Park Tudor School Trust, and the Board of Directors of Behavior Corp., the Indianapolis Museum of Art, Happy Hollow Children's Camp, and the Indianapolis Art Center, where he also serves as Vice Chair. His memberships include the Indianapolis, Indiana State, Seventh Circuit, and American Bar Associations. He was named by the Indianapolis Business Journal to Who's Who in Law. He is a past co-chair of The Professionals, Officers and Directors Liability Sub-Committee of the Tort and Insurance Practice Committee of the American Bar Association. He is a member of the Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel, and he is a Master of the Sagamore American Inn of Court in Indianapolis.

Representative Cases

Hubbard v. Columbia Women's Hospital of Indianapolis, No. 49A04-0306-CV-310, 2004 WL 885718 (Ind. App. 2004)

Marion County Democratic Party v. Marion County Election Board, Case No. IP 01-1963 C-T/K, 2002 WL 1354717 (S.D. Ind. 2002)

Cram v. Howell, 680 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1997)

Hutchinson v. Spanierman, 190 F.3d 815 (7th Cir. 1999)

Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts, Inc. v. Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus, 917 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1990)

The foregoing judicial opinions are provided only as exemplars of the legal experiences of Hoover Hull LLP and its attorneys, and do not represent the full range of experience of the firm. They should not be viewed or used as a substitute for specific legal advice. Each of these legal matters presented a unique set of facts, and none should be viewed as suggesting or predicting any outcome in any other legal matter, regardless of similarity.