Indiana Oral Arguments: Recent Episodes
noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum)
This is a podcast for all arguments posted by Indiana's appellate courts. To subscribe to the podcast, enter the following address: https://www.blogger.com/feeds/5971403375621182401/posts/default?max-results=500
Case Summary
S.D. and G.D. are divorced and share a child together. After a physical altercation during S.D.’s visit with the child, G.D. sought a protective order. The Starke Circuit Court granted G.D.’s petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that S.D. was not a credible threat to G.D.’s safety or the safety of a household member, and the trial court erred by not balancing G.D.’s need for protection against the burden imposed by the protective order. S.D. v. G.D., 195 N.E.3d 406 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
S.D. v. G.D.
75C01-2201-PO-000001
Case Summary
Police stopped White’s car because a BMV inquiry on his license plate showed the car’s registration was “inactive,” although the plate was not yet expired. As a result of the stop, White was charged with multiple crimes. White moved to suppress all evidence resulting from the stop, arguing the stop was illegal because the “inactive” BMV return did not provide reasonable suspicion for the stop.
The Hendricks Superior Court denied White’s motion. On interlocutory appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, finding a BMV “inactive” return could signify several things but did not establish an infraction when the plate was not itself “expired.” The dissent disagreed, finding the officer reasonably suspected that any return other than “active” indicated something could be amiss with the registration, justifying the stop. White v. State, 199 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated.
The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Avis Deforest White v. State of Indiana
32D05-2010-F4-000035
Case Summary
Duke Energy has overhead power lines in a 10-foot-wide easement over Bellwether’s property, but the National Electrical Safety Code requires a 25-foot-wide “strike zone” between the lines and nearby buildings. That "strike zone" required Bellwether to reduce the size of a warehouse it planned to build. Bellwether sued Duke for inverse condemnation, alleging that the “strike zone” constitutes a taking larger than the easement and requires just compensation. The Monroe Circuit Court denied Duke’s motion for summary judgment, finding a dispute of material fact as to whether Duke’s directive amounted to a physical taking. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that any taking here was instead regulatory and not compensable under the legal standards for regulatory takings. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. Bellwether Props. LLC, 192 N.E.3d 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. Bellwether has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. Bellwether Properties, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Case Summary
The State of Indiana charged Deonlashawn Cammron Simmons with murder for shooting a fourteen-year-old girl. A jury found Simmons guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to 105 years, including an enhancement for using a firearm. Simmons now appeals his conviction, arguing: (1) the trial court erred in admitting a portion of his videotaped interview with police because it implied that he had a criminal history; (2) the trial court erred in admitting an ATF firearms trace summary for a gun found in his car because the State did not establish that it was accurate; and (3) the State did not present sufficient evidence to prove that he killed the victim.
Deonlashawn C. Simmons v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
A hospital notified certain patients that a technician had failed to complete a step in sterilizing at least one instrument that had been used in their surgeries, and it offered them free testing for communicable diseases. One of the patients, Linda Gierek, and her husband Stephen filed proposed class action complaints against the hospital with the trial court and the Indiana Department of Insurance, seeking damages for alleged negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Giereks’ case was consolidated with those of other plaintiffs (“the Plaintiffs”), and the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 23. The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (“the PCF”) was permitted to intervene and filed a motion for summary judgment on its counterclaim for declaratory judgment that the Plaintiffs’ claims are not governed by the Medical Malpractice Act (“the MMA”). The hospital filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment asserting that the Plaintiffs’ claims are governed by the MMA. After a hearing, the trial court issued an order denying the PCF’s summary judgment motion, granting the hospital’s summary judgment motion, and denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs now bring this interlocutory appeal.
Linda Gierek and Stephen Gierek, et al. v. Anonymous 1, et al.
Case Summary
Appellant/Plaintiff Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana, as subrogee of Ramona Smith, appeals the trial court’s order granting Michaelis Corporation’s Trial Rule 12(B) motion to dismiss. Safeco contends that the trial court erred in granting Michaelis Corporation’s motion because it properly asserted claims of third-party spoilation and negligence. For its part, Michaelis Corporation contends that the trial court properly granted its motion to dismiss because Safeco failed to allege claims for which relief could be granted.
Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana v. Blue Sky Innovation Group
Case Summary
This case is about the scope of easement rights benefitting property near Lake Monroe. The parcels at issue form a peninsula, such that some parcels lack direct access to public roads. Decades ago, a landowner with road access planned to develop a subdivision. When doing so, the landowner granted easement rights benefitting a neighbor’s contiguous parcel that otherwise lacked road access. Eventually, the current owners of the contiguous parcel bought a wooded parcel contiguous with the first. Like the first parcel, the wooded parcel lacks direct access to public roads, accessible only by water. This dispute is between homeowners in the subdivision and the owners of the two parcels. Below, the homeowners alleged the neighbors exceeded the scope of their easement rights. They alleged that, although the neighbors could cross the subdivision in certain ways benefitting the first parcel, the easement did not benefit the second parcel. Thus, according to the homeowners, the neighbors could not remove logs from the second parcel, then truck those logs across the first parcel and through the subdivision. In this case, there were two prior appeals involving whether the homeowners were entitled to a preliminary injunction. Now, the homeowners appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the neighbors. They dispute whether easement rights benefitting one parcel automatically benefit a contiguous parcel under common ownership.
Cain, et al v. Huff II Revocable Trust Declaration dated June 28, 2011, et al
Case Summary
The State of Indiana filed a complaint seeking the forfeiture of $2,435 in currency that Fort Wayne Police seized from Alucious Kizer when he was arrested on suspicion of dealing controlled substances. Kizer requested that the forfeiture case be tried before a jury, which the Allen Circuit Court granted. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Article 1, Section 20 of the Indiana Constitution did not require a jury trial for civil forfeitures. State v. $2,435 in United States Currency and Kizer, 194 N.E.3d 1227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the appeal.
State of Indiana v. $2,435 in United States Currency and Alucious Q. Kizer
22A-CR-00578
Case Summary
Dux North, LLC and the Morehouses own adjacent parcels of real property and dispute whether Dux North’s landlocked parcel of real estate enjoys an implied easement in the Morehouses’ private road that connects to a public road. The Hamilton Superior Court found an implied easement by prior use to exist but did not decide whether an implied easement of necessity existed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for additional proceedings, holding that an implied easement of necessity is unavailable, but that further factual development is needed to decide whether an implied easement by prior use is proper. Morehouse v. Dux North, LLC, 196 N.E.3d 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the appeal.
Jason Morehouse and Sarah Morehouse v. Dux North, LLC
29D06-2010-PL-007042
Case Summary
The Marion Superior Court entered true findings of dangerous possession of a firearm and possession of a machine gun against A.W., a minor. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that A.W. knew that an attachment to the gun converted it to a machine gun. However, the Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that the convictions for dangerous possession and possession of a machine gun violated the Double Jeopardy clause in Article 1, § 14 of the Indiana Constitution. A.W. v. State, 192 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. Ct. App. July 29, 2022). The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the case.
A.W. v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
The Randolph Eastern School Corporation filed suit against Performance Services, Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment voiding a contract between the parties for the operation of a wind turbine on the basis that it violated state law restricting the types of investments that school corporations may make. Performance Services counterclaimed for damages. The Randolph Circuit Court granted declaratory judgment and voided the contract. On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the contract was not an investment and is therefore enforceable. Performance Servs, Inc. v. Randolph E. Sch. Corp., 196 N.E.3d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the case.
Case Summary
M.H. and A.H., foster parents of S.L., filed a petition to adopt S.L. and provided notice only to S.L.’s paternal grandparents and not to the father. Hamilton Superior Court granted temporary custody of S.L. to the foster parents, and more than one year later the father filed a motion to set aside that order. The trial court denied the motion to set aside, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the lack of notice of the adoption proceedings to the father voided all orders from the adoption court due to lack of personal jurisdiction over father. P.L. v. M.H. and A.H., No. 22A-AD-80 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2022), trans. pending. The foster parents have petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
In the Matter of the Adoption of S.L. (P.L. v. M.H. and A.H.)
Case Summary
James Harold Higgason, III appeals his three convictions of murder. He presents multiple issues for our review, which we restate as:
(1) Whether the trial court erred when it denied Higgason’s motion to dismiss the charges against him because the State did not file the charges until twenty-four years after the murders were committed;
(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Higgason's motion for mistrial when the judge identified Higgason as a participant in a phone call before the State had laid that foundation;
(3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted a recording of that phone call because (a) the recording did not meet the requirements of Indiana Evidence Rule 1002, also known as the Best Evidence Rule, and (b) the State did not lay a proper foundation for its admission; and
(4) Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it responded to a jury question without first notifying counsel.
James Harold Higgason, III v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
In the early morning of August 21, 2020, Courtney Moss (Defendant) was at Bugsy’s Bar in Gary with several others, including Myles Thomas, Willie Jones, and Roy Atkins. Rayvon Harris (Victim) approached the group in the parking lot and spoke with Thomas. Victim and Thomas then walked across the street to a gas station, and the others followed. Moss, Thomas, and Atkins were each armed with guns. Victim was not.
Inside the gas station, Thomas and Victim argued and then Jones and Thomas
began beating Victim, who fell to the floor. Thomas dropped his gun, and Victim
unsuccessfully struggled for it. Jones was shot in the leg during the melee, and as
he began to flee, Defendant stood over Victim and fired his gun at Victim multiple
times. Atkins also joined in on the shooting. Victim died at the scene after
suffering seven gunshot wounds, four of which were fatal or potentially fatal.
Four shell casings recovered from the scene matched the gun used by Defendant.
Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. On appeal, Defendant contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of aggravated battery; (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Defendant fired any of the fatal shots or otherwise accelerated Defendant’s death; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting, over Defendant's Ind. Evidence Rule 403 objection, a photograph of him handcuffed in the backseat of a police vehicle.
Courtney Moss v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
James Fair was convicted in Hendricks Superior Court of Level 3 felony possession of cocaine, Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor endangering a person, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in his blood. Fair also admitted that he was an habitual offender.
The trial court imposed an aggregate thirty-two-year sentence to be served executed in the Department of Correction. Fair appeals his sentence and argues that it is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Specifically, Fair claims that his sentence is inappropriate because he simultaneously possessed the substances at issue and he struggles with drug addiction and mental illness. In response,
the State argues that Fair’s sentence is appropriate considering the nature of his offense and his lengthy criminal history.
James Fair v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Annual Conference-African Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc. (“AME”) concerning the ownership of property in Rush County. The property, known as the Old Beech Settlement, houses a church that was built in the mid-1800’s. Plaintiffs are descendants of the original settlors that built the church. In 2000, AME filed a quiet title action and reached a settlement agreement regarding ownership of the property. Plaintiffs, however, challenge the settlement of the 2000 litigation. The trial court rejected Plaintiffs’ arguments and granted summary judgment to AME.
On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that: (1) the judgment in the 2000 litigation is void due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to AME on AME’s arguments of claim and issue preclusion; and (3) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to AME on Plaintiffs’ claim of adverse possession.
Beech Settlement Inc. v. Ind. Annual Conference
Case Summary
On the night of February 7, 2020, Freida Starks and her cousin went to a Little Caesar’s restaurant in Indianapolis. Starks’s ex-boyfriend, Daryl Coleman, and his new partner, Gina Watford, had the same idea and visited the same Little Caesar’s. Starks and Watford approached the restaurant at the same time, at which point Starks attacked Watford. After the fight was broken up, Starks went into the restaurant. She returned minutes later holding a gun and fired in Watford’s direction, missing Watford’s person but striking her car instead. On February 18, 2020, the State charged Starks with Level 6 felony criminal recklessness, Level 6 felony pointing a firearm, and Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief. In August of 2020, a jury convicted Starks of the felonies, and the trial court sentenced her to 730 days, with 640 days suspended to probation, on both counts to be served concurrently. Starks appealed, alleging that her convictions for pointing a firearm and criminal recklessness violate Indiana’s prohibition on double jeopardy as articulated in Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227, 239 (Ind. 2020).
Freida Starks v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Ball State student Keller Mellowitz filed a putative class action complaint against the university, asserting breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims based on Ball State’s retention of certain costs and fees for the Spring 2020 semester. In 2021, the General Assembly enacted a statute prohibiting trial judges from certifying certain COVID-related claims as class actions. The Marion Superior Court then ordered Mellowitz to amend his complaint to remove members of the putative class, and Mellowitz appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute prohibiting class actions was “purely procedural” and impermissibly conflicted with Indiana Trial Rule 23. Mellowitz v. Ball State University, 195 N.E.3d 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
This oral argument will be held at the University of Indianapolis, Christel DeHaan Fine Arts Center.
Keller J. Mellowitz v. Ball State University, Board of Trustees of Ball State University, and State of Indiana
49D01-2005-015026
Case Summary
Officer Daniel Criswell was terminated from the Indiana State Police after throwing a rock through the window of a car and interfering with the investigation of the incident. The Indiana State Police Board affirmed the decision to terminate Criswell. Seeking judicial review, Criswell took the case to the local trial court, which also affirmed his termination. The trial court found the ISP Board’s decision supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise in violation of the law. Criswell now appeals.
Daniel Criswell v. Indiana State Police
Case Summary
Oberhansley was charged with murder, burglary, and rape in connection with the killing of his ex-girlfriend. Following a jury trial, the Clark Circuit Court sentenced Oberhansley to LWOP for the murder and an additional six years for the burglary. In this direct appeal, Oberhansley challenges whether the trial court erred in imposing LWOP because the jury failed to find that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and whether LWOP is inappropriate due to the nature of the offense and Oberhansley’s character.
Joseph Albert Oberhansley v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Haytham ElZayn formed Dealer VSC, Ltd to enter into a joint venture with Tricor Automotive Group and the following additional actions were necessary: (1) Dealer and Tricor formed Allegiance Administrators, LLC, by entering into a Formation and Contribution Agreement; (2) Dealer, Tricor, and Allegiance entered into an Operating Agreement for Allegiance; and (3) Allegiance and ElZayn entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Personal Goodwill. Around a year later, Tricor, Dealer, and ElZayn entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) pursuant to which Dealer sold six of its Allegiance Units to Tricor and Tricor agreed to provide a line of credit to Dealer. Dealer executed a promissory note in favor of Tricor to secure the loan. A dispute arose over the calculation of any earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), with Tricor alleging that ElZayn owed Tricor a Goodwill Adjustment under the Goodwill Agreement or Tricor would designate the amount owed as a draw against the MOU. Ultimately, Tricor alleged that Dealer was in default under the Note and MOU and Tricor claimed ownership of thirty-six of Dealer’s Allegiance Units. Tricor filed a complaint against Dealer and ElZayn, naming Allegiance as an interested party. ElZayn and Dealer filed counterclaims against Tricor. Dealer and ElZayn filed a motion for summary judgment and Tricor filed its own motion for summary judgment. The trial court issued its order on all pending motions: (1) granting Dealer’s and ElZayn’s motion for summary judgment; (2) denying Tricor’s motion for summary judgment; (3) granting ElZayn’s motion to dismiss Allegiance’s cross-claims against him; and (4) issuing evidentiary rulings. On appeal, Tricor and Allegiance challenge the court’s grant of Dealer’s and ElZayn’s motion for summary judgment in this dispute over ownership of Allegiance and fees owed.
TriCor Automotive Group, et al. v. Haytham ElZayn, et al.
Rescheduled from FRI, MAR 31, 2023 at 10:00 AM
Case Summary
Tony Richey appeals following his conviction of Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon ("SVF"). Richey was wandering around in the rain for several hours when police officers stopped him. A short time later, Richey got into one of the officer’s cars, and the officer asked Richey if he had a gun. When Richey said he did, the officer arrested him. Richey presents three issues for review: (1) Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that Richey had been convicted of the pre-requisite felony necessary for him to be considered a SVF; (2) Whether the Terry stop of Richey was an unlawful seizure in violation of both the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution; and (3) Whether the trial court committed fundamental error in admitting evidence of Richey’s prior convictions.
Tony Richey v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Plaintiffs, Citation 2004 Investment LLC, and Citation Oil & Gas Corp., filed an amended complaint against multiple parties including Mega Oil, Inc., Janice M. Pegram, Donnelle K. Pegram, Stacy A. Pegram, Paul W. Pegram, Steven J. Pegram, Travis J. Pegram, Chattanooga Oil & Gas, LLC, and Brenda L. Fancher as trustee of the Lair Trust. The complaint referenced an oil and gas lease recorded in 1937 (the “Keck Lease”) and asserted that Citation 2004 Investment LLC was the holder of the operating rights under the Keck Lease; a 2009 affidavit by Janice M. Pegram erroneously stated that the Keck Lease had not been operated for the production of oil or gas; and an oil and gas lease (the “Pegram Lease”) was recorded in 2009. The complaint sought declaratory judgment that the Keck Lease was valid and continuing, the Pegram Lease was void, and the operations of Mega Oil, Inc., on the subject property constituted a trespass. On May 5, 2022, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Specifically, the trial court found that the Keck Lease was valid and had remained valid since its inception; the Pegram Lease was invalid and void; Citation 2004 Investments, LLC, was the present interest holder of the oil and gas as an assignee of the Keck Lease; the operations of Mega Oil, Inc., on the leased premises constituted a trespass; and Mega Oil, Inc., was immediately ejected from the leased premises. Mega Oil, Inc., Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Janice M. Pegram, Donnelle K. Pegram, Stacy A. Pegram, Paul W. Pegram, Steven J. Pegram, Travis J. Pegram, Chattanooga Oil & Gas, LLC, and Brenda L. Fancher as trustee of the Lair Trust appeal the May 5, 2022 order.
MEGA OIL, et al. v. CITATION 2004 INVESTMENTS LLC
Case Summary
On January 6, 2022, Appellant Thomas Charles Bookwalter filed his declaration of candidacy for primary nomination in 2022 for Republican U.S. Congressional Representative for District 4. Gregory Irby and Cody Eckert challenged the filing, and, on February 18, 2022, the Indiana Election Commission determined that Bookwalter was ineligible for candidacy and directed that his name not be printed on the primary ballot pursuant to Indiana Code section 3-8-2-7(a)(4). On March 14, 2022, Bookwalter petitioned for judicial review, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and petitioned for an emergency stay pending judicial review. On April 1, 2022, the trial court denied Bookwalter’s petition for emergency stay, and Bookwalter sought to have the matter certified for interlocutory appeal. On June 7, 2022, the trial court denied Bookwalter’s motion to certify the matter for interlocutory appeal. On August 8, 2022, the court granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss Bookwalter’s petition and complaint.
Bookwalter contends that the trial court erred in failing to apply the great-public-importance exception to the mootness doctrine, Indiana Code section 3-8-2-7(a)(4) violates his federal constitutional rights to freely associate with the Republican Party and his Indiana constitutional rights to equal protection and open courts, and the trial court misapplied Indiana Family & Social Services Administration v. Meyer, 927 N.E.2d 367 (Ind. 2010), in dismissing his petition for judicial review.
Charles Thomas Bookwalter v. Indiana Election Commission, et al.
Case Summary
David Fouts was found dead on the side of the road. An autopsy determined that David’s manner of death was homicide by unspecified means. Following a police investigation, David’s wife, Katrina Fouts, was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and failure to report human remains. A detective working the case spoke to Fouts and told her that he knew she killed David, to which she responded “I know.” Fouts objected to the admission of this testimony at trial, arguing that it was a confession not supported by sufficient corpus delicti. The trial court determined that it was not a confession and permitted the admission of the testimony. In the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor referred to Fouts’ comment to the detective as an admission of guilt. Fouts was then convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and failure to report human remains. Fouts now appeals.
Katrina Louise Fouts v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Kriss Bauman collided with and ran over a motorcyclist. Officers responding to the scene placed Bauman in a police vehicle and read him his Miranda rights. He was handcuffed and read the implied consent law. His request to phone his attorney was denied by the officers. Bauman eventually consented to a blood draw, which revealed the presence of methamphetamine in his blood. Bauman now challenges the blood draw as lacking the voluntary consent required by the State and Federal Constitutions. The State counters that Bauman’s consent was implied by statute. Bauman further contends that the trial court erroneously admitted lay witness testimony at trial that Bauman had been chasing the motorcycle with the intent to run it over.
Kriss Bauman v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
William Brittingham appeals following the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss. On January 12, 2022, the State alleges Brittingham confronted his girlfriend, L.D., and her co-worker, R.H., in a parking lot. Brittingham forced L.D. into his car at gunpoint, and R.H. fled across the street to a grocery store parking lot. Brittingham drove over to R.H., punched R.H., and pointed a gun at him. The State charged Brittingham under Cause Number 45G03-2201-F3-000003 ("F3-3") with Level 3 felony criminal confinement, Level 5 felony kidnapping, Level 5 felony intimidation, Level 6 felony criminal confinement, Level 6 felony pointing a firearm, and Class B misdemeanor battery. Under Cause Number 45D08-2202-CM-000569 ("CM-569"), the State charged Brittingham with Class A misdemeanor battery. Brittingham pled guilty and received a suspended sentence in CM-569. Brittingham argues the State is therefore barred by Indiana Code section 35-41-4-4 from continuing to prosecute him in F3-3.
William Brittingham v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Brandon Pritcher was convicted of murder for beating his son to death. Pritcher appeals and claims that: (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct amounting to fundamental error by misstating the State’s burden of proof during closing arguments: (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Pritcher murdered his son; and (3) Pritcher’s maximum sixty-five-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
Brandon Pritcher v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Adoptive Parents filed a petition for adoption and received a decree in their favor in Hamilton County. Grandmother then filed a motion to intervene, arguing that Hamilton County did not have jurisdiction because her own petition for adoption in Harrison County was the first filed and because Hamilton County was not a preferred venue. The Hamilton Superior Court denied Grandmother’s Motion to Intervene. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Grandmother had no standing. In the Matter of Adoption of A.E., No. 21A-AD-2766 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. Grandmother has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
In the Matter of the Adoption of A.E.; C.L.F. v. C.M. and M.B.
Case Summary
Amy Rainey filed a form to declare her candidacy for State Representative of District 49 as a Republican primary candidate. Daniel Holtz, chair of the Elkhart County Republican party, filed a form contesting Rainey’s candidacy. The Indiana State Election Commission held a hearing and voted to uphold Holtz’s challenge to Rainey’s candidacy. Rainey filed a petition for judicial review, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and a petition for emergency stay pending judicial review. The trial court denied Rainey’s complaint and petitions, holding that the decision of the Commission was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Additionally, the trial court held that it is within the constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Indiana legislature to restrict who a political party may choose to represent it in a primary election. Rainey now appeals, arguing that the Commission did not observe proper procedure because the hearing was not fair, orderly, or impartial, and that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence. She also argues that the Commission’s interpretation of Indiana Code 3-8-2-7(a)(4) is illegal and invalid, and that the statute violates her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freely associate, her Article 1, Section 23 right to equal protection, and her Article 1, Section 12 right to open courts.
Amy Rainey v. Ind. Election Commission, et al
Case Summary
When Appellee Paul Elmer was a licensed pharmacist in Indiana, he committed professional acts that resulted in his conviction for several federal crimes. Appellant the Indiana Board (“the Board”) of Pharmacy suspended Elmer’s license, and he later allowed it to expire. After the expiration of Elmer’s license, the State sought the revocation of Elmer’s license, and the Board did so. Elmer filed a petition for judicial review of the Board’s revocation and sought damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the individual members of the Board for alleged violations of his federal due-process rights. The trial court granted Elmer’s petition and remanded to the Board with instructions to dismiss the administrative action but denied his request for attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the Board lacked the authority to revoke an already-expired license. Back in the trial court, Elmer renewed his request for attorney’s fees, and the Board moved to dismiss the § 1983 claims. The trail court initially ruled in favor of the Board in both respects, but granted Elmer’s motion to correct error, ruling that the Board had violated Elmer’s civil rights and awarded him $81,696.29 in attorney’s fees. The Board and its individual members appeal, arguing that the individual members have absolute immunity for adjudicating a disciplinary action, the Board and its members are not persons pursuant to § 1983, and Elmer is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.
Indiana Board of Pharmacy v. Paul Elmer
Case Summary
An Indiana State Police Trooper was on patrol when he saw a vehicle with two lights in the rear window emitting blue light. Indiana Code section 36-8-12-11(c) and (e) make it a Class C infraction for a person who is not a member of a volunteer fire department to display an illuminated blue light on a vehicle. The trooper stopped the vehicle and subsequently discovered that the driver, Bryan Falletti, did not have a driver's license in his possession. The trooper issued citations for the infractions of operating a vehicle without a driver's license in his possession and having blue lights on a private vehicle. After a bench trial, the judge found that Falletti had committed both infractions. Falletti now appeals the finding as to the violation of Indiana Code section 36-8-12-11 only. He argues that the statute's prohibition of displaying a blue light "on a vehicle" is ambiguous and applying the rule of lenity by which we strictly construe statutes against the State, should be interpreted to mean "on the exterior of a vehicle."
Bryan C. Falletti v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
On October 6, 2020, the State charged David Singleton with Level 3 felony burglary and two counts of Level 6 felony domestic battery. In January of 2021, Singleton entered into a plea agreement by which he pled guilty to Level 3 felony burglary; however, Singleton later moved to set aside that plea. That same day, the trial court denied his motion and sentenced him to fourteen years in the Department of Correction. In February of 2022, Singleton filed a motion to file a belated appeal, which the trial court denied. In May, Singleton appealed, arguing that he is entitled to a belated appeal because he is an eligible defendant under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2.
David C. Singleton v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
A jury found Hayko guilty of one count of felony child molesting. The Spencer Circuit Court sentenced Hayko to ten years in prison with two years suspended to probation. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding—among other things—that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Hayko’s request for witnesses to testify as to their opinion of the alleged victim’s untruthfulness. Hayko v. State, 196 N.E.3d 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the case.
Matthew Hayko v. State of Indiana
74C01-1902-F3-000058
Case Summary
Dillard Department Stores, Inc., owns and operates a retail store at the Green Tree Mall in Clarksville, Indiana. For each of the 2018 through 2020 tax years, the Clark County Assessor assigned the Dillard property an assessed value ranging between $9.9 million and $10.1 million.
Dillard challenged those assessments, filing appeals first with the Clark County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then with the Indiana Board of Tax Review. The Indiana Board conducted an administrative hearing on Dillard’s appeals in July of 2021.
During the Indiana Board hearing, both Dillard and the Assessor presented USPAP-certified appraisals valuing the subject property. Dillard’s appraisal estimated its property’s market value-in-use at approximately $5.1 million while the Assessor’s appraisal valued the property at approximately $10.5 million.
On July 25, 2022, the Indiana Board issued a final determination in the matter. The Indiana Board found that despite some flaws, Dillard’s appraisal was nonetheless probative of the property’s market value-in-use. The Indiana Board also determined that the while the Assessor’s appraisal presented “minimally credible” opinions of value, they failed to rebut those presented in Dillard’s appraisal. Accordingly, the Indiana Board reversed the Assessor’s original 2018-2020 assessments and adopted Dillard’s appraisal value of $5.1 million.
The Assessor initiated an appeal with the Indiana Tax Court on September 2, 2022. The Assessor’s primary claim is that in finding Dillard’s appraisal more probative, the Indiana Board committed reversible error because it ignored the fact that the appraisal was not based on market data and likely incorporated business value. The Assessor maintains, therefore, that Dillard failed to make a prima facie case and that the property’s original assessed values should be reinstated.
Oral argument will be held remotely via video conference.
Clark County Assessor v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.
Case Summary
Rachel W. Baker appeals her conviction for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine at a penal facility. Baker argues the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the methamphetamine found in her pocket during a search incident to her arrest because the officer who arrested her violated the Indiana Seatbelt Enforcement Act. Baker contends the officer violated the Indiana Seatbelt Enforcement Act when he asked Baker, a passenger in the vehicle who was wearing a seatbelt, for identifying information because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot. In response, the State argues the officer had reasonable suspicion that a crime was occurring based on improper registration provided by the vehicle's driver and thus did not violate the Indiana Seatbelt Enforcement Act.
Further, Baker asserts the State did not present sufficient evidence she committed Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine at a penal facility because she was in the penal facility as a result of an unlawful arrest and thus not there voluntarily. Additionally, Baker argues officers entrapped her into possessing methamphetamine at a penal facility because there is no evidence Baker was predisposed to possess methamphetamine at a penal facility. In response to her arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the State contends Baker took methamphetamine into the penal facility voluntarily after being warned of the consequences for doing so.
Rachel W. Baker v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Jonathan Cavins is a pediatrician who was convicted of two counts of felony child molesting, one count of felony sexual misconduct with a minor, and two counts of felony child seduction for his commission of sexual acts on several male teenage patients while he was employed at Anonymous Hospital. Following Cavins’ convictions, one victim and his parents filed a medical malpractice action against Cavins and the Hospital. The plaintiffs reached a confidential settlement with the Hospital in an amount sufficient to permit them to petition for excess damages from the Patient’s Compensation Fund. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an action, in which both the Hospital and Cavins intervened, for additional compensation from the Patient’s Compensation Fund. The Fund moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs’ claim falls outside the scope of the Medical Malpractice Act. The trial court denied the Fund’s motion. The Fund now appeals, contending that, because Cavins’ sexual assault does not constitute an act or omission of health care, plaintiffs’ claim for damages arising out of the sexual assault does not give rise to a claim for medical malpractice under the Medical Malpractice Act and, consequently, that plaintiffs’ claim against the Hospital cannot be characterized as negligent credentialing under the Act. The Fund thus contends that plaintiffs’ claims do not constitute medical malpractice under the Act that would give rise to a claim for excess damages against the Fund.
Indiana Department of Insurance, et al. v. Jane Doe, et al.
Case Summary
William Mealer shot and killed Dennis Vincent following a disagreement about a shotgun. A jury convicted Mealer of murder, and the trial court sentenced him to a fifty-five (55) year advisory sentence. Mealer argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his murder conviction because the State failed to rebut his claim that he had shot and killed Vincent in self-defense. Mealer also argues that his advisory sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character.
William A. Mealer v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Hoosier Contractors sued Gardner for breach of contract. Gardner counterclaimed on behalf of himself and a class of those similarly situated, alleging violations of the Home Improvement Contractors Act, and a class was certified. The Hamilton Superior Court later denied Hoosier’s motion to decertify the class but issued an order requiring the notice of class action to advise potential class members that they could be liable for Hoosier’s attorney fees if Hoosier prevailed at trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Gardner, 190 N.E.3d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Sean Gardner
21A-CT-01351
29D02-1602-CT-001262
Case Summary
Community Hospital of Anderson used an email-to-pager system to notify various departments and staff members of add-on, same day surgical procedures. The unencrypted messages included a patient’s personal information. A reporter received a tip that the information sent through this system could be intercepted with a certain type of radio and translated with free online software. The reporter in fact intercepted and translated a message sent through the system that contained Rubendall’s personal information. Rubendall filed a class-action complaint against the Hospital for negligence, intrusion, and public disclosure of private facts, which claim was recently recognized by the Indiana Supreme Court in Community Health Network, Inc., v. McKenzie, 185 N.E.3d 368 (Ind. 2022), as falling within the realm of invasion of privacy.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital, concluding that the Hospital negated the element of publicity necessary for the disclosure claim because the undisputed evidence showed that only one person received Rubendall’s personal information and that damages for loss of privacy as part of the negligence claim were unrecoverable as Rubendall did not fall within the modified impact rule, which requires a plaintiff to have personally sustained a physical impact in order to recover damages. Rubendall appeals, arguing that because she alleged publicity per se, the trial court was precluded from granting summary judgment on that basis. She also argues that damages for her negligence-based loss of privacy claim should be exempt from the modified impact rule.
Brittany Rubendall v Community Hospital of Anderson and Madison County
Case Summary
After a special legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1 (“S.B. 1”), which criminalizes abortion, with a few limited exceptions. Appellees filed a complaint for declaratory relief and sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1. The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, and Appellants appealed. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer under Indiana Appellate Rule 56(A) and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, et al. v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc., et al.
53C06-2208-PL-001756
Case Summary
In March 2020, the Indiana Repertory Theatre (IRT) shut down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. IRT made a claim for business-income coverage under its insurance policy with The Cincinnati Casualty Company. Cincinnati denied the claim, and IRT filed suit. The trial court granted summary judgment to Cincinnati, concluding that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) on surfaces and in the air at the theatre does not constitute “physical loss” or “physical damage” under the policy. IRT appeals.
Indiana Repertory Theatre, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Casualty Company, et al.
Case Summary
Jordan Brewer, Mark Timmons, and Josh Uits, in their official capacities as Clinton County Commissioners, (“the Commissioners”) appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office and Richard Kelly, in his capacity as Clinton County Sheriff (“the Sheriff”). In the lower court cause, the Sheriff asked the trial court to determine whether the Commissioners had exceeded their authority when they enacted an ordinance prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in county offices, including the Clinton County Jail. In its order on summary judgment, the trial court concluded the Commissioners did not have authority to regulate (1) the conduct of the inmates in the Clinton County Jail and (2) the right of the Sheriff to sell e-cigarettes at the Clinton County Jail. On appeal, the Commissioners argue the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in the Sheriff’s favor because, pursuant to the Indiana Home Rule Act, the Sheriff had only the powers expressly granted by statute. Based thereon, the Commissioners assert the relevant statutes do not grant the Sheriff unlimited discretion regarding what is sold to inmates at the Clinton County Jail. In response, the Sheriff contends the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission regulated the Sheriff’s sale of the e-cigarettes and Indiana law expressly entrusts the Sheriff with the care of the jail and the prisoners therein.
Clinton County Board of Commissioners, et al v. Clinton County Sheriff's Office, et al.
Case Summary
Shortly after Zachary Miller was released from the emergency room at Community Howard Regional Health, he killed his grandfather. Miller pleaded guilty but mentally ill to voluntary manslaughter. He then filed a medical malpractice complaint against Community and other healthcare providers, and a medical review panel found the providers failed to comply with the appropriate standard of care. The Howard Superior Court granted summary judgment in the providers’ favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Miller was legally responsible for his criminal act. Miller v. Patel, 189 N.E.3d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Zachary Miller v. Laxeshkumar Patel, M.D., John Schiltz, M.D., Benjamin Coplan, M.D., Community Physicians of Indiana, Inc., and Community Howard Regional Health, Inc. d/b/a Community Howard Behavioral Health
34D01-1903-CT-000651
Case Summary
The Birges filed an inverse condemnation action against the Town of Linden and other defendants, alleging that improvements made to an agricultural drain caused a portion of the Birges’ property to flood when it rained. The Montgomery Circuit Court found that the Town’s actions constituted a taking that entitled the Birges to compensation. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in determining that a taking had occurred. Though the Court of Appeals found this issue dispositive, it also addressed three other issues the Town raised that were likely to recur on remand. Town of Linden et al. v. Birge, 187 N.E.3d 918 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), reh’g denied, vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the case.
Town of Linden, Indiana, Montgomery County, Indiana, Montgomery County Commissioners, Montgomery County Drainage Board, and Montgomery County Surveyor v. Darrell Birge and Sandra Birge
54C01-1409-PL-000774
Case Summary
Keesha Johnson appeals her Class A misdemeanor criminal recklessness conviction. She raises one issue on appeal involving the Marion County Superior Court's requirement that the witnesses in her trial wear masks while testifying before the jury. In August of 2021 the Marion Circuit Court and the Marion Superior Court Executive Committee issued an order requiring that all individuals aged two or older wear "protective facial coverings" inside courthouse facilities. In November 2021, the executive committee updated the order and lifted the mask mandate. However, the order continued to require that all individuals involved in a jury trial "wear a mask throughout the jury proceedings." Johnson's trial was held in December 2021, and she requested that witnesses wear protective face shields while testifying so that their faces could be seen by the jury. The trial court denied this request due to the language of the updated court order and required the witnesses to wear face masks. Johnson argues that the trial court's denial of her request violated her right to confront her accusers guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as under Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution.
Keesha Johnson v. State of Indiana
Case Summary
Square 74 Associates, LLC, leases retail space on the first floor of the World of Wonders garage at the Circle Centre Mall in Indianapolis. For the 2010 through 2018 assessment years, Square 74’s space was assessed between $4.7 million and $5.2 million.
Square 74 subsequently challenged those assessments. To demonstrate that the assessments were incorrect, Square 74 presented an appraisal report to the Indiana Board of Tax Review that valued the property between $3.3 and $3.6 million for each of the assessment years at issue. Square 74’s appraisal report valued the improvements only, alleging that because the owner/lessor of the underlying land was a tax-exempt entity, the land had zero value.
In response, the Assessor did not offer an appraisal of the subject property. Instead, he argued that Square 74 1) failed to raise the issue of valuation in its appeal and 2) failed to adhere to the standards for valuing property in Indiana.
In its final determination, the Indiana Board stated that while it found Square 74’s appraisal valuation of the improvements probative, the appraisal report was inconsistent with Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-37’s requirement that the land in fact be valued. Nonetheless, the Indiana Board explained that to the extent the income capitalization approach contained in Square 74’s appraisal report contained a land valuation that resulted from an estimation of the ground lease’s value, the Indiana Board was able to “remedy” the appraisal report’s land value exclusion. In other words, the Indiana Board simply added that land valuation to the appraisal report’s valuation of the improvements, for a total value of $3.9 million for the 2010 assessment year.
The Indiana Board then explained that because the 2010 assessment represented an increase of more than 5% from its correct value, the Assessor bore the burden of demonstrating under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 that the 2011 through 2018 assessments were correct and if the Assessor failed, Square 74 was provided an opportunity to prove that its proffered valuations were correct. The Indiana Board ultimately held that neither party met its burden of proof and, as a result, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 mandated that the 2011 through 2018 assessments revert to the $3.9 million value as it previously determined.
The Assessor now appeals from that final determination. In his appeal, the Assessor asserts that the Indiana Board abused its discretion when it “revised” Square 74’s appraisal report to include the land value; instead, the Indiana Board should have rejected the appraisal report outright. In addition, the Assessor alleges that the Indiana Board erred when it shifted the burden of proof on the 2011 through 2018 assessments to the Assessor.
Oral argument will be held remotely via videoconference.
Marion Co. Assessor v. Square 74 Assoc., LLC
Case Summary
Posterity Scholar House LP contracted with a general contractor to perform work on a construction project. As required by their contract, the general contractor obtained surety bonds from FCCI Insurance Company. When the general contractor allegedly failed to perform under the construction contract, Posterity filed bond claims with FCCI, demanding that FCCI perform the general contractor’s obligations. Posterity later filed suit against FCCI, claiming it handled Posterity’s bond claims in bad faith. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of FCCI, finding it did not owe Posterity a duty of good faith and fair dealing under Indiana law. Posterity appeals.
A surety bond acts like a contract between three parties: the surety (FCCI), the obligee (Posterity), and the principal (general contractor). As a matter of first impression under Indiana law, this case asks whether the surety owes the obligee a duty of good faith and fair dealing, and if so, whether the breach of that duty gives rise to a cause of action in tort.
Posterity Scholar House v. FCCI Insurance Company
Case SummaryDavidson was severely injured in a semi-truck crash in Monroe County. She sued the trucking company and its owner in Lake County, where the trucking company was incorporated, and received a $3.24 million judgment. Davidson then sued the State, INDOT, and other defendants in Monroe County, arguing that her injuries were caused, in part, by Defendants’ negligence in constructing the I-69 extension. The Monroe Circuit Court dismissed Davidson’s complaint, finding that her claims were barred by collateral estoppel. The Court of Appeals reversed. Davidson v. State, 187 N.E.3d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Kathryn Davidson v. State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Transportation, I-69 Development Partners, LLC, DLZ Indiana, LLC, Aztec Engineering Group, Inc., Walsh Construction Company, II, LLCWhen:TUE, NOV 15, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:22S-CT-00318Lower Case:21A-CT-01516County:Monroe
Case SummaryYoung was convicted in the Lake Superior Court of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder for a gas-station shooting in Gary. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, with the majority finding the evidence was insufficient to prove Young was the shooter. Young v. State, 187 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Marquis David Young v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, NOV 3, 2022 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:22S-CR-00306Lower Case:21A-CR-02341
45G03-2012-MR-000048County:Lake
Case SummaryLyons was accused of child molesting and entered into an agreement with the State to take a stipulated polygraph examination, the results of which would be admissible at trial. During the pre-polygraph screening, and without Lyons’s knowledge, the officer administering the polygraph changed it to non-stipulated due to concerns over Lyons’s mental state. Lyons then made incriminating statements during the post-polygraph interview. On the first day of trial, the Lawrence Superior Court granted a continuance and ultimately suppressed any evidence of Lyons’s post-polygraph statements due to the State’s failure to disclose that the polygraph was non-stipulated. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Lyons, 189 N.E.3d 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. The State has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to grant transfer and accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
State of Indiana v. Bryan D. LyonsWhen:THU, NOV 3, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:21A-CR-02187Lower Case:47D01-1707-F1-000973County:Lawrence
Case SummaryStar Financial Group sent the Deckers an email notifying them that their latest monthly checking account statement was available on its website. On the last two pages of the statement, there was an addendum to the account terms and conditions requiring arbitration of any class action claims. When the Deckers later filed a class action against Star Financial alleging it charged excessive overdraft fees, the Allen Superior Court granted Star Financial’s motion to compel arbitration. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, with the majority holding that Star Financial failed to provide the Deckers with reasonable notice of the arbitration addendum. Decker v. Star Financial Group, 187 N.E.3d 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Cliff Decker and Wendy Decker, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Star Financial Group, Inc.When:THU, NOV 3, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:22S-PL-00305Lower Case:02D02-2103-PL-000116
21A-PL-02191County:Allen
Case SummaryKailee Smith (now Leonard) was falsely arrested for leaving the scene of an accident that killed a dog owned by an Indiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Conservation Officer. Leonard obtained a judgment against the Officer, who assigned Leonard his right to indemnification from the DNR under Indiana’s public employee indemnification statute (Ind. Code § 34-13-4-1). Leonard then obtained a judgment against the DNR for indemnification, which the DNR appeals.
In issuing the indemnification judgment, the trial court described the Officer’s false arrest conduct as follows: “[The Officer] falsely maintained that Leonard had left the scene and returned the next day—not shortly after the accident, as had actually happened.” On appeal, the parties dispute whether this conduct was “noncriminal,” as required for indemnification under the public employee indemnification statute.
State of Indiana, acting by its Department of Natural Resources v. Kailee M. Smith et al.When:WED, NOV 2, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. May
J. Weissmann
Case No:22A-MI-685Lower Case:49D01-1706-MI-23427County:Marion
Case SummaryDavid Guzzo, Robert Guzzo, and Betty Jo Keller (collectively, “the Appellants”) appeal the trial court’s final judgment order that involves the interpretation of Indiana Code § 32-24-4.5-8, which was amended in 2019, and Indiana Code § 32-24-4.5-6.2, which was enacted in 2019. In the trial court’s final judgment order, the trial court entered judgment on behalf of the Appellants but denied the Appellants request to have the Town of St. John (“the Appellee”) compensate the Appellants at a rate of 150% of the agreed-upon fair market value of the property. The Appellants now appeal.
David J. Guzzo, et al. v. Town of St. JohnWhen:TUE, NOV 1, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Rescheduled from WED, SEP 14, 2022 at 10:00 AMCourt:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Pyle
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-PL-2213Lower Case:45D11-1403-PL-37County:Lake
Case SummaryIMPD officer Robert Lawson responded to a disturbance at a local high school and assisted school resource officers with an unruly student. During the incident, Lawson struck the student because he believed based on the student’s behavior that the student was about to hit him. After the incident, Lawson spoke with Sergeant Jenkins, one of the resource officers also involved in the incident, about what she had observed. He then reported in a probable cause affidavit that Jenkins stated she saw the student swing at Lawson just before he struck the student. Jenkins later reported that she did not say she saw the student swing at Lawson but did say the student looked as if he was about to swing at Lawson. Based on his inclusion of Jenkins’ alleged statement in the probable cause affidavit, Lawson was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury, battery, false informing, and official misconduct. A jury found him not guilty of battery, was unable to reach a verdict on obstruction of justice, and found him guilty of the remaining charges. Lawson appeals his convictions, contending the trial court erred in denying his Trial Rule 50 motions for judgment on the evidence because the question of whether the inclusion of Jenkins’ statement in a probable cause affidavit was criminal was a legal determination that should have been made by the court not a jury. Lawson also argues the trial court erred in declining his proposed jury instructions about perjury and that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.
Robert Lawson v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, OCT 27, 2022 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Weissmann
J. Foley
Case No:22A-CR-448County:Marion
Case SummaryAfter a bench trial, the Marion Superior Court found Harris guilty of robbery and battery. Harris requested a jury trial on the charge that he was a habitual offender, but the trial court didn’t allow him to present evidence to the jury about the circumstances surrounding his convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed Harris’s convictions and sentence. Harris v. State, 187 N.E.3d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. Harris has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
This oral argument will be held at the Mitchell Opera House in Mitchell, Indiana.
Christopher Jerome Harris v. State of IndianaWhen:WED, OCT 26, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:21A-CR-01315Lower Case:49D27-1908-F3-032941County:MarionLocation:Mitchell Opera House
Case SummaryAt 3:30 a.m. on May 27, 2021, two Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers responded to a report of a disturbance at a gas station in a high-crime area. The officers arrived and noticed a group walking away from the nearby gas station, some of whom matched the general description of those in the reported disturbance. D.M. was hiding in the shadows between two buildings and appeared to be attempting to conceal something in his pants. D.M. fled on foot, and after a brief pursuit, the officers detained him and discovered a handgun and several bindles of cocaine on his person.
The State petitioned to have D.M. adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be, if committed by an adult, Level 5 felony dealing in cocaine, Level 5 felony cocaine possession, Class A misdemeanor dangerous possession of a firearm, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. The juvenile court denied D.M.’s motion to suppress the evidence recovered from his person. After a fact-finding hearing, the juvenile court found all delinquency allegations true. The juvenile court found that D.M., in committing the instant delinquent acts, had also violated the terms of probation in another case and placed him on probation with a suspended commitment to the Department of Correction (“DOC”). D.M. contends that the juvenile court erred in determining that the officers had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain him for investigatory purposes pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 11, of the Indiana Constitution.
D.M. v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, OCT 20, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bradford
J. Pyle
J. Weissmann
Case No:22A-JV-428County:Marion
Case SummaryThe Petitioners are all homeowners’ associations (“HOAs”). In 2014, the HOAs appealed the assessment of their common areas for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 assessment years. The HOAs believed their common areas should have been assessed as having little to no value.
In 2019, the Indiana Board of Tax Review granted the Marion County Assessor’s motion to dismiss the HOAs’ appeals on the basis that they utilized the wrong process to litigate their claims. The HOAs subsequently initiated an appeal with the Indiana Tax Court. Upon review, the Tax Court affirmed the Indiana Board’s dismissal on three of four issues. The Tax Court remanded the fourth issue – whether the HOAs’ common areas had been taxed more than once – to the Indiana Board for further consideration.
The HOAs appealed the Tax Court’s decision to the Indiana Supreme Court. On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed the Tax Court on one issue but affirmed its disposition of the remaining three issues. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Indiana Board for further proceedings consistent with its and the Tax Court’s opinions.
On October 19, 2021, the Indiana Board scheduled a hearing for December 8, 2021 to review and decide the two issues that had been remanded to it. Upon the parties’ joint motion, the Indiana Board rescheduled the hearing to December 15, 2021.
On November 12, 2021, the HOAs filed a motion to establish a case management plan in which it sought to reschedule the December 15th hearing to September of 2022 so that it would have time to conduct discovery and file dispositive motions if necessary. The Indiana Board did not rule on the motion.
On November 19, 2021, the HOAs issued a 30(b)(6) notice of deposition on the Assessor for December 2, 2021. That same day, the Assessor indicated to the HOAs that he could not attend the deposition that day. Nonetheless, the HOAs proceeded to conduct the deposition on that day and the Assessor did not appear.
On December 14, 2021, the HOAs filed a motion with the Indiana Board to reschedule the December 15th hearing as well as a partial motion for summary judgment. The Indiana Board did not rule on the motion to reschedule the hearing; instead, it conducted that hearing as scheduled. The HOAs did not appear at that hearing.
On December 21, 2022, the HOAs filed a motion with the Indiana Board seeking sanctions against the Assessor. On December 22, 2021, the Indiana Board dismissed the HOAs’ claims on the basis that they failed to appear at the December 15th hearing.
On January 3, 2022, the HOAs filed a motion with the Indiana Board seeking to have the dismissal of their case vacated. On January 10, 2022, the Indiana Board took the HOAs motion under advisement and set a hearing on all pending motions for February 11, 2022.
On January 13th, the Indiana Board denied the HOAs’ December 14th partial motion for summary judgment as untimely. On January 18, 2022, the HOAs sought a rehearing on the Indiana Board’s denial. The Indiana Board did not rule on that rehearing request, and the HOAs initiated the current appeal with the Tax Court.
Now, in its present appeal with the Tax Court, the HOAs allege that the Indiana Board’s decision dismissing their appeal must be overturned because it was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case. More specifically, the HOAs argue that while they adequately laid out the need for discovery, the Indiana Board simply ignored their request. Moreover, the HOAs argue, the Indiana Board failed to recognize their compelling reason for not being at the December 15th hearing: they had already filed their partial motion for summary judgment. Finally, the HOAs argue that not only did the Indiana Board ignore the fact that the Assessor egregiously abused the Trial Rules relating to discovery matters, it also violated Trial Rule 56 in denying their partial motion for summary judgment as untimely.
In response, the Assessor argues that the Tax Court should dismiss the HOAs’ case because they never received a final determination from the Indiana Board in the first instance. Alternatively, even if the HOAs’ appeal was proper, the Assessor maintains that the Indiana Board’s dismissal was proper: they failed to appear at the December 15th hearing and they failed to demonstrate any “extraordinary circumstances” that justified that failure.
Oral argument will be held remotely via videoconference.
Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc., et al. v. Marion County AssessorWhen:WED, OCT 19, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:22T-TA-00007County:MarionLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case SummaryIn this appeal, Duke Energy Indiana, LLC (Duke Energy) challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the City of Noblesville on the issue of whether the City may enforce its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) against the utility. The dispute arose when the utility began demolishing a structure on its property in Noblesville without first obtaining a demolition permit from the City. The demolition was the precursor to the utility’s construction of a seven-bay truck storage and office building there. In addition to granting summary judgment, which requires the utility to seek demolition and construction permits if it wishes to proceed, the trial court fined the utility and ordered it to pay the City’s attorney fees. On appeal, the utility claims that by statute, its compliance with the UDO during this construction project is not required and that the trial court erred in imposing the fines and attorney fees award.
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. City of Noblesville, IndianaWhen:TUE, OCT 11, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Pyle
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-PL-1563Lower Case:29D01-2009-PL-6389County:Hamilton
Case SummaryIn October 2021 the Marion Superior Court held a commitment hearing remotely, over Respondent B.N.’s objection and request for an in-person hearing; and at the conclusion of the hearing, the court found B.N. was gravely disabled and ordered a regular commitment. B.N. appealed, challenging the denial of her request for an in-person hearing, but the Court of Appeals held B.N.’s arguments were waived and affirmed the trial court. In the Matter of Civil Commitment of B.N., No. 21A-MH-2525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. B.N. has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of B.N. v. Health and Hospital Corporation d/b/a Sandra Eskenazi Mental Health CenterWhen:TUE, OCT 11, 2022 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:21A-MH-02525Lower Case:49D08-2110-MH-035009County:Marion
Case SummaryTenants of a commercial building and their insurers sued U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. for damages caused by a broken sprinkler system. Automatic Sprinkler had a maintenance contract with one of the tenants, Sycamore Springs Surgical Center. Automatic Sprinkler moved for summary judgment against all the plaintiffs, which the Marion Superior Court denied. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 185 N.E.3d 445 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corporation v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut a/s/o Sycamore Springs Surgical Center, LLC, Dr. Nancy Pruett, D.D.S., and 3D Exhibits, Inc.When:TUE, OCT 11, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:22S-CT-00264Lower Case:21A-CT-00580
49D12-1706-CT-024859County:Marion
Case SummaryColumbia Street Partners (“Appellee”) filed a complaint, seeking a declaratory judgment that—based on the interpretation of a prior settlement agreement entered between Appellee and Red Spot Paint (“Appellant”)—Appellee was not required to indemnify Appellant for Appellant’s costs and attorney fees incurred when a third-party had impleaded Appellant into a lawsuit that had been filed against the third party by Appellee. In its complaint, Appellee also requested to recover the fees and costs incurred in this current litigation as allowed under the terms of the settlement agreement. Thereafter, Appellant filed a counterclaim against Appellee for breach of contract and indemnity for costs in the prior litigation and fees and costs in the current litigation. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Appellee’s summary judgment motion, concluding that Appellee was entitled to a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to indemnify Appellant for Appellant’s costs and attorney fees. The trial court also denied Appellant’s summary judgment motion, concluding that Appellant was not entitled to any relief on its counterclaim. Appellant now appeals.
Red Spot Paint & Varnish Company v Columbia Street Partners, Inc. and Charles D. StormsWhen:TUE, OCT 11, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Brown
J. Pyle
Case No:21A-CC-1806Lower Case:82C01-2010-CC-4333County:Vanderburgh
Case SummaryA jury found Owen guilty of murder, robbery, and two counts of confinement. It also recommended that he receive life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) for the murder. The Elkhart Circuit Court sentenced Owen to LWOP and a term of years. In this direct appeal, Owen challenges whether sufficient evidence supports LWOP, whether the court erred by refusing to give two of his proposed jury instructions during the trial’s penalty phase, and whether the court committed other sentencing-related errors.
Case SummaryLexington Square owns a multi-building apartment complex in Elkhart, Indiana. Lexington Square appealed its property assessments for the 2016 through 2018 tax years, first with the Elkhart County Property Tax Board of Appeals and then with the Indiana Board of Tax Review. In conjunction with contesting its property’s valuation, Lexington Square also alleged that it was assessed unfairly in comparison to other similarly-situated properties in Elkhart County.
The Indiana Board conducted a hearing on Lexington Square’s appeal on May 18, 2021. During that hearing, the Elkhart County Assessor admitted that pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, she bore the burden of proving her assessment was correct. To that end, she submitted a USPAP appraisal valuing the property for each of the years at issue. In rebuttal, Lexington Square presented its property manager’s testimony as to what he believed the property’s value to be during each of the years at issue, based on its net operating income history.
In a final determination issued on March 24, 2022, the Indiana Board determined that the Assessor’s appraisal failed to prove that her assessment was correct because it did not precisely and exactly conclude to the property’s assessed value as was required by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. In turn, the Indiana Board also determined that Lexington Square failed to demonstrate both what the proper value of its property should be and that it was unfairly assessed in relation to other similarly-situated properties. As a result, the Indiana Board ordered that each of Lexington Square’s contested assessments revert to the property’s 2015 assessed value in accordance with Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2.
The Assessor subsequently petitioned the Indiana Board for a rehearing, claiming that the Indiana Board erroneously applied Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. More specifically, she explained that after the Indiana Board conducted its administrative hearing in the case, but three days before it issued its final determination, the Indiana Legislature repealed Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 and adopted a new burden-shifting statute. She argued that because 1) the new statute specifically stated that it applied only to appeals filed after its effective date of March 21, 2022, and 2) there was no savings provision in the enrolled act providing that the old statute would remain in effect as to pending appeals, it was as if the old burden-shifting statute never existed. Thus, she concluded, she never bore the burden of proof at the administrative hearing.
The Indiana Board subsequently denied the Assessor’s petition for rehearing, stating that it correctly applied the burden of proof because the now-repealed burden shifting statute was in effect at the time it conducted its evidentiary hearing. The Assessor now appeals that decision to this Court.
Oral argument will be held remotely via videoconference.
Elkhart County Assessor v. Lexington Square LLCWhen:THU, OCT 6, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:22T-TA-00007County:ElkhartLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case Summary
Plainfield police noticed a suspicious car in a hotel parking lot and conducted a dog sniff of the car. The dog alerted to the odor of narcotics. Police then conducted a dog sniff of the hotel room believed to be associated with the car’s owner, and again the dog alerted to the odor of narcotics. Police knocked on the door and Crabtree answered. Police asked Crabtree to exit the room and she did so. Police then went into the room to remove her companion. In part using information they gained while in the room, police applied for and received a warrant to search the car and room. The search revealed narcotics and stolen firearms. Crabtree moved to suppress the evidence found in the hotel room, arguing the dog sniff and warrantless entry into the room were improper and thus the warrant did not contain sufficient probable cause. The trial court denied her motion, and this interlocutory appeal ensued.
Courtney Crabtree v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, OCT 6, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Crone
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CR-2752Lower Case:32D04-2105-F2-18County:Hendricks
Case SummaryIndiana Code sections 20-26-7-1 and 20-26-7.1-4 provide that, if the governing body of a school corporation determines the property is no longer needed for school purposes, it must sell or rent the building to an interested charter school for $1. Previously, school corporations had been permitted to sell the building and place money from the sale in the school corporation’s operations fund. Between 2018 and 2021, Lake Ridge School Corporation, School City of Hammond, and West Lafayette Community School Corporation (collectively, “the Schools”) each closed school buildings and are now being required to offer those buildings to charter schools for $1. The Schools brought suit against Governor Eric Holcomb, Attorney General Todd Rokita, the Indiana State Board of Education, and the Indiana Department of Education (collectively, “the State”), arguing this requirement constitutes an impermissible taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution. The State moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute is not unconstitutional. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. The Schools now appeal.
Lake Ridge School Corporation, et al v. Eric Holcomb, et alWhen:WED, OCT 5, 2022 at 3:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Crone
J. Tavitas
Case No:22A-PL-423Lower Case:45D05-2001-PL-2County:Lake
Case SummaryReva Capalla and Mark Capalla (the “Capallas”) owned businesses relating to the sale and distribution of wine and alcohol. In 2017, they entered into agreements with Wilbert Best and Best Vineyards, LLC (“Best Vineyards”) (collectively, the “Best Parties”) to be the exclusive distributors of Best Vineyards’ products in certain states. Issues arose shortly after the parties entered into the agreements. Since that time, the parties have been arguing (in various tribunals) about funds allegedly owed to the Best Parties and each side’s actions as they relate to the parties’ agreements and the funds. On October 5, 2021, the Capallas filed suit against the Best Parties. The trial court subsequently granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Best Parties. The Capallas appeal from the trial court’s order.
Reva Capalla and Mark Capalla v. Wilbert Best and Best Vineyards, LLCWhen:WED, OCT 5, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bradford
J. Najam
J. Bailey
Case No:22A-CT-657County:Harrison
Case SummaryChristy Cinamon has filed this interlocutory appeal challenging the Greene Superior Court’s order denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained when police officers searched her purse. Specifically, while searching Donald Stelezel’s home with his consent after arresting resident Stephanie Hawkins, law enforcement officers observed Cinamon’s purse on the floor next to the couch in the living room. Cinamon was a guest in the residence. While Cinamon was outside the residence, an officer searched Cinamon’s purse and found a rolled-up wash cloth. The officer unrolled the cloth and found a glass pipe with methamphetamine residue. A debit card with Cinamon’s name was also found in the purse. Cinamon was allowed to re-enter the home to use the restroom. After she exited the restroom, the officer asked Cinamon if the purse belonged to her. Cinamon, who was not given any Miranda warnings, admitted that the purse was hers.
Cinamon was charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Cinamon filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of her purse and argued that the search violated her rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and her Article 1, Section 11 rights under the Indiana Constitution. The trial court denied her motion and Cinamon has filed this interlocutory appeal.
Christy Cinamon v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, OCT 4, 2022 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Altice
J. Weissmann
Case No:22A-CR-390Lower Case:28D01-2004-F6-82County:Greene
Case SummaryGene and Gladys DeVane own a home built in 1991 with decks constructed of wood treated with arsenic to protect it from termites and other pests. In 2020, they filed an action for “equitable remediation” against three companies that had manufactured arsenic for use in treated wood. The DeVanes claim they “recently discovered” that there is arsenic in the decks and that the arsenic makes the decks “inherently dangerous.” They also allege the decks are uninsurable and must be listed as a defect if they ever try to sell their house. They seek an order requiring the defendants to replace their decks.
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the action is one for product liability and is therefore subject to Indiana’s Product Liability Act and its statute of repose, which provides that no product-liability action can be commenced more than ten years after “the delivery of the product to the initial user or consumer.” They contend the DeVanes have labeled the action as one for “equitable remediation” simply in an attempt to avoid the statute of repose. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.
The DeVanes appeal, arguing their action is not one for product liability and is not subject to the statute of repose because the Product Liability Act governs only actions for “physical harm” to a person or to property other than the product itself and they are not claiming any existing or past physical harm, only the risk of future physical harm. They also assert that, even if their action is one for product liability, the defendants fraudulently concealed the dangerous nature of their product and are therefore equitably estopped from relying on the statute of repose.
Gene DeVane and Gladys DeVane v. Arch Wood Protection, Inc., A Lonza Company, Osmose, Inc., n/k/a Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc., and Chemical Specialties, Inc., n/k/a Venator Materials PLSWhen:FRI, SEP 23, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Vaidik
J. Tavitas
Case No:22A-CT-233Lower Case:53C01-2008-CT-1504County:Monroe
Case SummaryDavis was charged in two different cases with theft-related offenses. He signed a global plea agreement that would limit his overall executed sentence to four years, with no more than two years in the DOC. The plea agreement also waived Davis’s right to appeal any sentence so long as the sentence was within the terms of the agreement. The Madison Circuit Court accepted Davis’s guilty plea and sentenced him within the terms of the agreement, but at both the guilty plea hearing and the sentencing hearing, the court advised Davis that he did have the right to appeal the sentence. When Davis filed separate appeals, the Court of Appeals dismissed both sua sponte, finding them barred by the plea agreement’s waiver. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Matthew H. Thomas Davis v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, SEP 22, 2022 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:22S-CR-00253Lower Case:21A-CR-02632
21A-CR-02633
48C04-1809-F5-002346
48C04-1901-F6-000079County:Madison
Case SummaryAfter 14-year-old M.H. admitted to delinquent acts, including dangerous possession of a firearm, in an Elkhart County juvenile court, the Indiana Supreme Court held juvenile courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate juveniles delinquent for dangerous possession of a firearm under the statutes in effect. K.C.G. v. State, 156 N.E.3d 1281 (Ind. 2020). The General Assembly responded to K.C.G. by expanding the definition of delinquent act, and thereby jurisdiction of the juvenile court, to include dangerous possession of a firearm. M.H. moved for relief from judgment, which the juvenile court denied. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instruction to grant M.H.’s motion for relief from judgment. M.H. v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
M.H. v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, SEP 22, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:22S-JV-00251Lower Case:20C01-1906-JD-000169
21A-JV-02326County:Elkhart
Case SummaryA jury found Carmack guilty of murder, neglect of a dependent resulting in death, domestic battery resulting in death to a person under 14 years of age, and strangulation. It also recommended life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) for the murder. The Grant Circuit Court entered a judgment of conviction for murder and sentenced Carmack to LWOP. In this direct appeal, Carmack challenges whether sufficient evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she did not act in “sudden heat” when she killed the victim.
Amanda Dawn Carmack v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, SEP 22, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:21S-LW-00471Lower Case:27C01-1909-MR-000008County:Grant
Case SummaryDefendant was arrested for Level 6 felony lifetime parole violation and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, but the State only charged Defendant with the misdemeanor. The State and Defendant then entered into a diversion agreement that provided, among other things: “The State reserves the right to revoke this agreement for any reason prior to its execution and for any violation of its terms thereafter.” Both parties executed the agreement, and Defendant never violated its terms. However, a week after the agreement’s execution, the State moved to revoke the agreement and add the Level 6 felony count. The trial court granted the motion, and Defendant was convicted on both counts. On appeal, Defendant argues that revoking his diversion agreement was a substantive due process violation, a breach of contract, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Jeremiah Smith v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, SEP 15, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Pyle
J. Weissmann
Case No:22A-CR-364Lower Case:79D07-2108-F6-770; 79D07-2102-CM-555County:Tippecanoe
Case SummaryConvention Headquarters Hotels, LLC (“Convention HQ”) owns the JW Marriott Hotel located in downtown Indianapolis. On the March 1, 2010 assessment date, the subject property was under construction and assigned an assessed value of $86,987,100 ($15,270,400 for land and $71,716,700 for improvements).
Convention HQ subsequently appealed the assessment first with the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then with the Indiana Board of Tax Review. On June 28, 2019, after the Indiana Board failed to issue a final determination within the statutorily prescribed period, Convention HQ appealed to the Tax Court, alleging that the 2010 assessment of its property violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, 42 USC § 1983, the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Indiana Constitution, and the requirement that property be valued pursuant to its market value-in-use.
On November 4, 2019, Convention HQ filed a motion that sought to bifurcate the proceedings concerning the constitutional and valuation claims and stay the proceedings on the valuation claims until the constitutional claims were resolved. On December 03, 2019, the Court granted Convention HQ’s motion over the Assessor’s objection.
After the parties unsuccessfully moved for partial summary judgment, the Court conducted a three-day trial in February of 2022. During the trial, Convention HQ claimed that its evidence showed that the Marion County Assessor had violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Indiana Constitution by failing to assess the buildings of under construction commercial properties in Marion County uniformly between the 2006 and 2019 assessment dates. The Assessor, on other hand, argued that Convention HQ’s claims were meritless because his evidence demonstrated that all of the under-construction buildings in Marion County had consistently been assessed based on their market values-in-use since the 2006 assessment date.
Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion County AssessorWhen:THU, JUL 14, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:19T-TA-00021County:MarionLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case SummaryIn 2016, Cherie Drew and her husband, Nathan, purchased real property from Charlestown Enterprises, Inc. (“Charlestown”) in Clark County (“Drew property”). At that time, Drew believed that her property had legal access to a public road. Charlestown owned another tract of real property adjacent to the Drew property and, in 2017, Southgate bought the second tract (“Southgate property”). The Southgate property abuts a public road. In 2019, Drew learned that her property was, in fact, landlocked, with no access to a public road. Drew filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Southgate asserting that she had an implied easement of necessity on the Southgate property. The trial court denied Drew’s motion for declaratory judgment following a hearing. The court made findings and concluded in part that, “As the sale was contingent upon the buyer confirming access, and the late Mr. Drew having verified access, Drew waived any defect arising from lack of legal access by accepting the deed.” In the alternative, the trial court concluded that, even if an implied easement by necessity existed across Southgate’s property, Southgate was a bona fide purchaser, which protected it from “the imposition” of the easement across its property. On appeal, Drew disputes both that a waiver occurred and that a bona fide purchaser defense applies to an easement of necessity.
Cherie Drew v. Southgate Dev. LLCWhen:WED, JUL 13, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Najam
J. Bailey
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-PL-2642Lower Case:10C01-2103-PL-27County:Clark
Case SummaryPolice received a tip that McCoy’s residence was being robbed and that McCoy had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Upon arriving at McCoy’s residence, the police handcuffed and detained him. Without an advisement of rights, police asked McCoy if he would walk them through the house to see if any of his property was missing, and McCoy agreed. While walking through, police smelled the odor of burnt illegal drugs; they then obtained a warrant and found drug residue and paraphernalia in the house. The Cass Superior Court denied McCoy’s motion to suppress the evidence, and a jury found McCoy guilty of possession of meth and paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum decision. McCoy v. State, No. 21A-CR-2000 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. McCoy has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
This oral argument will be held at Lebanon High School in Boone County and will be Justice David’s final argument on the Court. Learn more about the case.
James E. McCoy v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, JUN 30, 2022 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21A-CR-02000Lower Case:09D01-2008-F6-000290County:CassLocation:Lebanon High School
Case SummaryDr. Tulsi and Kamini Sawlani own a two-story residence situated on nearly four acres of land in Lake County, Indiana. For the 2019 tax year, the Lake County Assessor assigned their property an assessed value of $1,998,900 ($369,600 for land and $1,629,300 for improvements). In arriving at this value, the Assessor designated the two-story residence and one acre of land as a residential homesite. The Assessor classified the remaining 2.981 acres as residential excess acreage. Accordingly, in computing the Sawlanis’ property tax liability, a 1% tax cap credit was applied to the gross assessed value of their homestead property (i.e., the residential homesite) and a 3% tax cap credit was applied to the gross assessed value of their nonresidential property (i.e., the residential excess acreage).
In 2020, the Sawlanis sought review first with the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then with the Indiana Board of Tax Review. During the Indiana Board proceeding, the parties disputed the constitutionality of the statutes that limited the application of the 1% tax cap to one acre of the Sawlanis land. In October of 2021, the Indiana Board issued a final determination upholding the application of the 1% tax cap to the Sawlanis’ homestead property and the 3% tax cap to their nonresidential property.
On appeal, the Sawlanis assert that the Indiana Board erred because the statutes that limit the application of the 1% tax cap to just one acre of their land conflicts with Article 10, Section 1(f) of the Indiana Constitution that provides a 1% cap on tangible property, including curtilage, that is used as a principal of residence.
Dr. Tulsi and Kamini Sawlani v. Lake Co. AssessorWhen:WED, JUN 29, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:21T-TA-00044County:LakeLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case SummaryIn this marital dissolution case, James Alifimoff appeals and Regina Stuart cross-appeals the trial court’s distribution of the marital assets. Alifimoff argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it: (1) failed to include in the marital estate passive activity loss carryovers; and (2) included in the marital estate real estate located in Smith County, Kansas. Stuart argues that the trial court abused its discretion in valuing three parcels of land located in Osborne County, Kansas.
James Alifimoff v. Regina StuartWhen:TUE, JUN 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Pyle
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-DN-2320Lower Case:02C01-1703-DC-274County:Allen
Case SummaryPayne-Elliott, a teacher at Cathedral High School, entered into a same-sex marriage in 2017. Cathedral later renewed his teaching contract for the 2019-2020 school year but soon terminated his employment. Payne-Elliott sued the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, claiming that it intentionally and without justification interfered with his contract and employment relationship by threatening to withhold its recognition of Cathedral as a Catholic high school if Cathedral continued to employ a teacher in a same-sex marriage. Citing several First Amendment doctrines, the Archdiocese moved to dismiss, and the Marion Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Payne-Elliott v. Roman Cath. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., 180 N.E.3d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), reh’g denied, trans. pending. The Archdiocese has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
Joshua Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc.When:TUE, JUN 28, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21A-CP-00936
22S-SJ-00130Lower Case:49D01-1907-PL-027728County:Marion
Case SummaryRoy L. Skeens was convicted Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and he was found to be a habitual offender. The Wabash Circuit Court ordered him to serve two and one-half years for the possession conviction and enhanced his sentence by six years for the habitual offender finding. Skeens appeals and raises three issues. First, Skeens argues that the State did not prove that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine found in the vehicle he was driving but did not own. Next, Skeens claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider mitigating circumstances before imposing his sentence. Finally, Skeens contends that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.
In response, the State argues it presented sufficient evidence to prove that Skeens constructively possessed the methamphetamine because he was sitting on the metal tin containing the methamphetamine, and the police officer saw Skeens making furtive gestures in an attempt to hide it. In response to Skeens’ argument concerning mitigating circumstances, the State argues that Skeens waived review of this claim by failing to raise the proposed mitigating circumstances to the trial court. Finally, the State argues that Skeens’ aggregate eight and one-half year sentence is not inappropriate because he has a significant criminal history.
Roy Skeens v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, JUN 16, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Mathias
J. Bradford
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CR-2889Lower Case:85C01-2105-F5-479County:Wabash
Case SummaryRyan Gookins worked for Independent Concrete Pipe Company (ICPC) until it was purchased by County Materials Corp. and others. The new company hired Gookins, and Gookins signed a confidentiality agreement. County Materials later sued Gookins for breaching the confidentiality agreement. Gookins asked County Materials to pay his defense costs, including attorney’s fees, in its lawsuit against him under an indemnification clause in the purchase agreement between ICPC and County Materials. County Materials refused, and Gookins sought a declaration that the purchase agreement requires County Materials to pay his defense costs. The trial court entered summary judgment for County Materials, and Gookins appeals.
Ryan Gookins v. County Materials Corp., A1 Transit Corp., CMC-Maxwell, LLC, and CMC-Indianapolis, LLCWhen:WED, JUN 15, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Najam
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-PL-1895Lower Case:30D01-1806-PL-958County:Hancock
Case SummaryGreg Serbon and John Allen filed a complaint against the City of East Chicago, Indiana, the City’s Common Council and its members, the City’s Mayor, the City’s Police Department, and the Police Chief, alleging that certain provisions of a City Ordinance and the policies implementing the Ordinance, ran afoul of Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2, which broadly requires local officials to comply with federal immigration authorities. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted both parties’ motions in part and denied both motions in part. On appeal, the parties present two main issues: (1) whether the Plaintiffs have standing, and (2) whether the City’s Ordinance violates Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2.
Greg Serbon v. City of East ChicagoWhen:TUE, JUN 14, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Riley
J. May
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-PL-1046Lower Case:45D03-1805-PL-45County:Lake
Case SummaryBellwether Properties, LLC owns land through which one of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s power lines passes, sited on a ten-foot-wide easement. As Bellwether was building a new warehouse, Duke informed it that the planned warehouse would violate a 12.5-foot horizontal clearance requirement, which Duke said was required by regulation. As a result, Bellwether reduced the size of its warehouse. Next, Bellwether sued Duke, on its own behalf and on behalf of a class of landowners, raising a claim of inverse condemnation. Duke moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. This interlocutory appeal followed.
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. Bellwether Properties, LLCWhen:MON, JUN 13, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. May
J. Shepard
Case No:21A-CT-1848Lower Case:53C01-1506-CT-1172County:Monroe
Case SummaryWhen the housing authority took land through an administrative eminent-domain procedure, the land’s owner sued for injunctive relief and damages. The Lake Superior Court granted summary judgment to the housing authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to vacate the housing authority’s taking and valuation of the land and to hold any further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion. 624 Broadway, LLC v. Gary Hous. Auth., 181 N.E.3d 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Case SummaryDr. Mousa sued her former employer, Family Dental, and the Lake Superior Court awarded her $94,466 in unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, and liquidated damages. A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed the liquidated damages award, holding that Dr. Mousa failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Wage Claims Act when she did not first file a claim with the Department of Labor. Family Dental Care, P.C. v. Mousa, 180 N.E.3d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.
Family Dental Care, P.C. v. Christine MousaWhen:THU, JUN 9, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:22S-PL-00141Lower Case:21A-PL-00670
45D02-1805-PL-000068County:Lake
Case SummaryNicholson and three others (collectively “Nicholson”) sued the City of Gary alleging four different provisions of its 2017 “Welcoming City” ordinance violate state statutes that prohibit governmental bodies from restricting information sharing about a person’s citizenship or immigration status and from limiting or restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws. The State intervened, and the Lake Superior Court granted summary judgment for Nicholson, prohibiting Gary from enforcing parts of its ordinance. Gary appealed. The Court of Appeals found that only two limited portions of Gary’s ordinance violate state statutes, and it affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. City of Gary v. Nicholson, 181 N.E.3d 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. pending. Nicholson and the State have petitioned this Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
City of Gary v. Jeff Nicholson, Douglas Grimes, Greg Serbon, Cheree Calabro, and State of IndianaWhen:THU, JUN 9, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:20A-MI-02317Lower Case:45D05-1802-MI-000014County:Lake
Case SummaryDonald Kearschner had an automobile insurance policy, including underinsured motorist coverage of $100,000 per person, with American Family Insurance. Kearschner was involved in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment. Kearschner subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim with his employer and a complaint against the tortfeasor. Additionally, Kearschner named American Family Insurance as an additional defendant and sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits. Kearschner received a workers’ compensation net payment of just over $62,000 from his employer. Kearschner also received a payment from the tortfeasor’s insurance company for the tortfeasor’s $50,000 policy limits. American Family Insurance moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to provide underinsured motorist coverage to Kearschner for the accident where Kearschner had received a payment of the statutory minimum coverage from the tortfeasor and a workers’ compensation payment from his employer. American Family Insurance relied on a provision in Kearschner’s insurance policy and argued that, under the policy language, Kearschner’s $100,000 underinsured motorist policy limits of liability had been reduced to zero after being set off by the tortfeasor’s payment and the workers’ compensation payment. The trial court granted American Family Insurance’s summary judgment motion and entered judgment in favor of American Family Insurance. Kearschner now appeals.
Donald Kearschner v. American Family InsuranceWhen:TUE, JUN 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Brown
J. Pyle
Case No:21A-CT-1888Lower Case:60C02-1908-CT-345County:Owen
Case SummaryAEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company (AEP) filed an eminent domain action against 701 Niles, LLC (Landowner) to obtain an easement for AEP’s underground electric transmission line. Landowner acknowledged the public purpose of the line and did not object, but the parties could not agree on compensation. Thus, panel of appraisers was appointed pursuant to statute.
During the appraisal process, which took several months, Landowner discovered that AEP had entered into a memorandum of understanding with the University of Notre Dame to allow the University to concurrently occupy the easement with the placement of a private line. Landowner filed a motion to enjoin AEP from using the land for this private purpose. Landowner argued that placement of the University’s line would constitute a separate and distinct use of the property and that this private easement for the University’s benefit was constitutionally prohibited from being taken by eminent domain. AEP, on the other hand, argued that the private use of the condemned property would only be incidental to the paramount public use and, therefore, not an unconstitutional taking.
Following a hearing, the trial court denied the injunction sought by Landowner. The court found that irrespective of whether the University were to also occupy the easement, AEP would still need the easement for the public purpose of installing and maintaining its transmission line. The court also found that Landowner had an adequate remedy at law – compensation for the taking related to the second line. Landowner now brings this interlocutory appeal.
701 Niles, LLC v AEP Indiana Michigan Transmission Company, Inc., et al.When:TUE, JUN 7, 2022 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Altice
J. Molter
Case No:21A-PL-2123Lower Case:71C01-2003-PL-140County:St. Joseph
Case SummaryIn 2019, the Pulaski County Board of Commissioners approved and adopted a Unified Development Ordinance that provides a regulatory scheme for the construction and operation of solar energy systems in the county. One year later, Mammoth Solar submitted an application seeking approval to construct a solar energy farm on 4511 acres of farmland in Pulaski County. Following a public hearing, the Pulaski County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved the application. Petitioners, who either own property within 660 feet of the proposed solar farm, reside with one mile of the proposed solar farm, or have homes that will be bordered by the solar farm’s panels, filed a petition for judicial review asking the trial court to enter an order reversing the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision and denying Mammoth Solar’s application. The trial court concluded that Mammoth Solar’s application had failed to comply with the minimum requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance, that the Board of Zoning Appeals should not have considered or acted on Mammoth Solar’s incomplete application, and that the Board of Zoning Appeals’ actions were arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with the law, and without observance of procedure required by law. The trial court vacated all actions taken on Mammoth Solar’s application and remanded the matter to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mammoth Solar appeals.
Mammoth Solar, aka Starke Solar v Connie Ehrlich, et alWhen:TUE, JUN 7, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Brown
J. Pyle
Case No:21A-PL-2060Lower Case:66D01-2009-PL-10County:Pulaski
Case SummaryDr. Louis Metzman, an orthopedic surgeon, signed a two-year employment contract with Franciscan Physician Network. The employment contract called for Dr. Metzman to receive a “base compensation,” as well as performance-based compensation and compensation for his services as medical director. A year later, Dr. Metzman filed a complaint against Franciscan, alleging breach of contract and violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute, after Franciscan reduced his base compensation to reflect “unpaid” vacation time and denied him the performance-based and medical-director compensation. Dr. Metzman also requested liquidated damages and attorney’s fees. Following the parties’ filing of competing summary-judgment motions, the trial court agreed with Dr. Metzman that the employment contract did not allow for reduction of the base compensation, but agreed with Franciscan that Dr. Metzman had not earned the performance-based compensation. The remaining issues went to a bench trial, where the trial court found Dr. Metzman was entitled to some of the medical-director compensation. The trial court then denied Dr. Metzman’s request for liquidated damages, finding Franciscan acted in good faith in denying his compensation, but awarded him full attorney’s fees, finding he was the prevailing party and thus entitled to fees under both the contract and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. Franciscan appeals, and Dr. Metzman cross-appeals.
Franciscan Physician Network and Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Louis S. Metzman, M.D.When:WED, JUN 1, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Najam
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-PL-2171Lower Case:54C01-1802-PL-213County:Montgomery
Case SummaryBecklehimer appeals her conviction of Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent.
On Friday, July 24, 2020, Becklehimer travelled to Pennsylvania to meet her husband. Although she travelled with her four-year-old daughter, she left thirteen-year-old J.K. home alone. Prior to travelling, she left J.K. with a cell phone, $25, and a fridge stocked with food. Among the rules J.K. had to follow when he was home alone was that he was not allowed to have friends over, and that he could call his grandfather (Grandfather) and step grandmother (Grandmother) (collectively, Grandparents) if he needed anything or call 9-1-1 in case of emergencies. On Saturday, July 25, 2020, J.K. went to the neighborhood pool with his friend B.D. J.K. informed B.D. that he was home alone for the weekend but did not invite him to his house. The following day, Sunday, July 25, 2020, J.K. heard a tapping on his window and he saw that it was B.D., and he saw that B.D. was trying to open his window. Because J.K. knew that B.D. had a type of multi-tool with a pocketknife component, J.K. was frightened that B.D. would hurt him and he called 9-1-1. When the officers arrived, B.D. was ordered to go home, and they attempted to contact Beckelhimer but she did not answer any of J.K.’s phone calls. Grandparents were contacted, and they arrived shortly thereafter. On August 3, 2020, the State filed an Information charging Becklehimer with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent. On July 14, 2021, the trial court conducted a jury trial and Becklehimer was found guilty as charged. The trial court subsequently sentenced Beckelhimer to two years, all suspended to probation. Becklehimer now appeals and raises four issues:
(1) Whether there was sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support her conviction;
(2) Whether her claim for the neglect of a dependent statute being constitutionally vague is waived;
(3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding certain evidence from a certain witness;
(4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion at sentencing in considering aggravating factors; and
(5) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing certain probation conditions.
Chastity M. Becklehimer v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, MAY 24, 2022 at 1:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Riley
J. Robb
J. Molter
Case No:21A-CR-1646Lower Case:01D01-2008-F6139County:Adams
Case SummaryThis case arises out of a residential lease between Krys Szalasny (“Landlord”) and Denzel Lewis, Folabi Oshinubi and Clarence White (“Tenants”). In February 2020, Landlord sued Tenants for breach of contract. Tenants countersued, alleging violation of Indiana’s Security Deposit Statute (ISDS) and breach of contract. Ultimately, Landlord voluntarily dismissed his breach-of-contract claim and stipulated to liability on Tenants’ ISDS and breach-of-contract claims. Tenants then moved for attorney’s fees under the ISDS. The trial court granted attorney’s fees for work done up until the date of Landlord’s stipulation, but denied attorney’s fees for work done after the stipulation, which consisted of work to calculate and recover attorney’s fees. Tenants now appeal the issue of attorney’s fees.
Clarence L. White et al. v. Krys SzalasnyWhen:FRI, MAY 20, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. May
J. Mathias
Case No:21A-CC-2063Lower Case:79C01-2002-CC-165County:Tippecanoe
Case SummaryAppellant Joshua Ptak was convicted of Level 3 felony robbery resulting in bodily injury. On appeal, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain evidence and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. For its part, the State claims that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence and that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Ptak’s conviction.
Joshua Ptak v. State of IndianaWhen:WED, MAY 18, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Bradford
J. Molter
Case No:21A-CR-1169Lower Case:45G04-1902-F3-000027County:Lake
Case SummaryAfter Minges was charged with two counts of misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, he moved to compel discovery of a “complete and accurate copy” of the police report. The Dearborn Superior Court denied Minges’s motion to compel and certified its order for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction and issued an opinion affirming the trial court. Minges v. State, 180 N.E.3d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. pending. Minges has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to grant transfer and assume jurisdiction over the appeal.
Frank E. Minges, III v. State of IndianaWhen:WED, MAY 18, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21A-CR-00216Lower Case:15D01-2010-CM-000754County:Dearborn
Case SummaryBFD Enterprise LLC (“BFD”) appeals following the trial court’s order dismissing its lawsuit against Jeff Koepnick and Koepnick’s wife, Shamarie Schauer. In August 2020, Koepnick, in his capacity as an employee of BFD and with Schauer accompanying him, embarked on a trip driving a semi-tractor trailer from Lewisport, Kentucky, to Kalamazoo, Michigan. In Huntington County, Indiana, Koepnick lost control of the vehicle and crashed into an overpass support pillar. Koepnick died and Schauer was injured. BFD filed suit in Indiana state court alleging negligence and a claim under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, and Schauer filed suit against BFD in Kentucky state court alleging negligence and vicarious liability. Schauer moved to dismiss the Indiana suit on the basis that the Kentucky suit should take precedence, and the Indiana trial court granted Schauer’s motion. On appeal, BFD raises two issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing BFD’s suit pursuant to comity principles, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing BFD’s suit on the ground Kentucky was a more convenient forum.
BFD Enterprises, LLC v. Jeff Koepnick, et. al.When:MON, MAY 16, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Brown
J. Pyle
Case No:21A-CT-1931Lower Case:35C01-2012-CT-764County:Huntington
Case SummaryLeon Casillas appeals following his convictions of Level 2 felony dealing in a narcotic drug and Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and his adjudication as a habitual offender. Casillas argues law enforcement violated his rights under both the United States and Indiana constitutions to be free from unreasonable search or seizure when they conducted a warrantless search of his house. Therefore, Casillas maintains the trial court should not have admitted the fruits of the search into evidence at his criminal trial. The State contends the search of Casillas’s home was permissible because Casillas validly consented to the search and the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the fruits of the search.
Leon Casillas v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, MAY 10, 2022 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. May
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-CR-2182County:Vanderburgh
Case Summary
Following the dissolution of her marriage to Charles Ramey, III, Ashley Ping (f/k/a Ashley Day) retained full legal and physical custody of their minor child (“Child”), with Ramey exercising supervised parenting time. On August 20, 2017, Ping noticed a “blister” on Child’s genitals. Ping notified the Indiana Department of Child Services (“DCS”) of the blister and sought medical treatment. Then, on August 28, during a custody evaluation, Ramey and his girlfriend, Jordan McHenry, observed a “blister” on Child’s genitals. McHenry texted a DCS family case manager a photograph of the blister, which McHenry reported as a “new” mark. The following day, McHenry called the DCS child abuse and neglect hotline and reported the injury. As a result, DCS removed Child from Ping’s care. DCS then filed a petition alleging Child to be a Child in Need of Services. Following a hearing, the court denied DCS’s petition and ordered that DCS return Child to Ping’s care. Ping and Child were separated for a total of forty-four days.
After Child was returned to her care, Ping filed a complaint in federal court against two DCS employees. Ping alleged that the DCS employees had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they removed Child from her care. The employees and DCS settled the case with Ping, and, in exchange, Ping signed a release and agreed to “forgo [her] right to a trial in the court systems of the United States and the State of Indiana on the issues raised” in her complaint.
Ping then filed a complaint against Ramey and McHenry in the Johnson Superior Court in which she alleged, in relevant part, that Ramey and McHenry had made a false report of child abuse to DCS in violation of Indiana Code Section 31-33-22-3. Ramey and McHenry filed a motion for summary judgment in which they contended that Ping’s complaint was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. In the alternative, they asserted that the release agreement Ping had signed precluded her from bringing the lawsuit in state court.
The trial court denied Ramey and McHenry’s motion, and the case proceeded to trial. After the parties had presented their evidence, Ramey and McHenry moved for a judgment on the evidence, which the court denied. The court then provided several instructions to the jury related to liability and damages. Following the trial, the jury found in favor of Ping and against Ramey, McHenry, and DCS as a nonparty. The jury attributed fault as follows: 33% to Ramey, 33% to McHenry, and 34% to DCS. The jury then awarded Ping $275,000 in damages plus $20,000 in punitive damages. Ramey and McHenry filed a motion to correct error, which the court denied. This appeal ensued.
Charles Ramey, III v. Ashley Ping (f/k/a Ashley Day)When:MON, MAY 2, 2022 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Najam
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CT-2103Lower Case:41D01-1908-CT-122County:Johnson
Case SummaryThree friends were shot during a home robbery in Fort Wayne. One of the victims survived and managed to communicate the name of one of the robbers to police. A Fort Wayne police detective then drove to the address of the named robber during the early morning hours after the robbery. The detective parked approximately a block away and then observed a car stop in the middle of the street directly across from the address that he was observing. The detective subsequently effected a traffic stop of the car. Police made a second traffic stop outside the house a few hours later.
Inside the second car were the named robber, as well as a handgun later linked to the crime. The named robber indicated that Jamesley Paul had been a part of the robbery. Paul was arrested and admitted that he had been present during the robbery. The State charged Paul with two counts of murder, two counts of felony murder, and one count of attempted robbery. Paul filed a motion to suppress evidence from the first traffic stop, which was denied. After the trial, but before jury deliberations, the trial court issued jury instructions regarding, among other things, accomplice liability. After several questions from the jury regarding the jury instructions, and additional closing arguments, the jury found Paul guilty of murder, two counts of felony murder, and the attempted robbery.
Paul now appeals, arguing that evidence resulting from the first traffic stop should have been suppressed, and that the jury instructions were so confusing as to undermine confidence in the verdict.
Jamesley Paul v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, APR 26, 2022 at 11:15 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Riley
J. May
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CR-01704Lower Case:02D05-2003-MR-9County:Allen
Case SummaryIn 1984, Joel Williams was suspected of participating in a home invasion that involved robbery and rape. It was not until 2018 that additional testing was performed on one of the victim’s sexual assault kits. This testing revealed a possible match to Williams, and, as a result, the State charged Williams with two counts of rape and two counts of criminal deviate conduct. Williams moved to dismiss the charges, asserting a violation of his due process rights as a result of the thirty-five-year delay. The trial court denied his motion, and Williams now appeals, contending the trial court’s ruling was in error.
Joel Williams, Jr. v. State of IndianaWhen:WED, APR 13, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Baker
J. Bailey
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CR-1581Lower Case:45G02-1903-FA-001County:Lake
Case SummaryBellwether Properties, LLC owns land through which one of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC’s power lines passes, sited on a ten-foot-wide easement. As Bellwether was building a new warehouse, Duke informed it that the planned warehouse would violate a 12.5-foot horizontal clearance requirement, which Duke said was required by regulation. As a result, Bellwether reduced the size of its warehouse. Next, Bellwether sued Duke, on its own behalf and on behalf of a class of landowners, raising a claim of inverse condemnation. Duke moved for summary judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. This interlocutory appeal followed.
Duke Energy Indiana, LLC v. Bellwether Properties, LLCWhen:WED, APR 13, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. May
J. Shepard
Case No:21A-CT-1848Lower Case:53C01-1506-CT-1172County:Monroe
Case SummaryA jury convicted Frederick Craft of murdering Kevin Blackmon and attempting to murder a police officer during a shootout in the parking lot of a night club after hours. Craft argues that the evidence was insufficient to support both charges and that the prosecution committed prosecutorial misconduct during its closing arguments. Craft alleges that in closing the State relied on wild speculation and attacks on his character, despite repeated admonitions from the trial court. The State argues Craft waived the claim when he failed to ask the court to admonish the jury.
Frederick Craft v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, APR 7, 2022 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. May
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-CR-2004Lower Case:45G03-2009-MR-39County:Lake
Case SummaryHouse Enrolled Act No. 1123 (2021) requires the General Assembly to convene in an “emergency session” when the Legislative Council adopts a resolution that makes certain findings. The Governor sued for an injunction and a declaration that the legislation violates Article 3, Section 1 and Article 4, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution. The Marion Superior Court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Governor appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Eric J. Holcomb, Governor of the State of Indiana v. Rodric Bray in his official Capacity as the President Pro Tempore of the Indiana State Senate, and chairman of the Ind. Legislative Council; Todd Huston in his official capacity as the Speaker of the Ind. State House of Representatives, et al.When:THU, APR 7, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-PL-00518Lower Case:21A-PL-02339
49D12-2104-PL-014068County:Marion
Case SummaryThe State charged Miller with multiple drug offenses, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF), resisting law enforcement, and being a habitual offender. Miller’s attorney agreed to give the jury a preliminary instruction on unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF, so that charge was not bifurcated. A jury found Miller guilty on all charges. The Cass Circuit Court granted the State’s post-verdict motion to dismiss the unlawful possession charge and sentenced Miller. The Court of Appeals reversed Miller’s convictions and remanded, concluding that giving the preliminary instruction was fundamental error. Miller v. State, 177 N.E.3d 893 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Terrance Trabain Miller v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, MAR 31, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:22S-CR-00059Lower Case:09C01-1906-F2-000009
20A-CR-02315County:Cass
Case SummaryConroad Associates, L.P. (“Conroad”) owns a building that is maintained by Castleton Corner Owners Association, Inc. (“the Association”). In February 2015, a sewer lift station maintained by the Association at the building failed and flooded a tenant’s location with sewage. Following the flood, the tenant terminated its lease with Conroad.
Conroad sued the Association for breach of contract for failing to maintain the lift station. The trial court found for Conroad following a bench trial, and the Association appealed. In a published opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s judgment that the Association had breached its contract for failing to maintain the lift station. Castleton Corner Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Conroad Assocs., L.P., 159 N.E.3d 604, 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. not sought (“Castleton Corner I”). However, we reversed the trial court’s calculation of damages and remanded with specific instructions for the trial court to enter a reduced damage award. Id. at 615.
While the appeal in Castleton Corner I was pending, the trial court held proceedings supplemental to the execution of its judgment against the Association. In the proceedings supplemental, the trial court ordered the Association to transfer title to the sewer lift and associated easements to Conroad in partial satisfaction of the judgment. The Association initiated an appeal of the order in proceedings supplemental in Castleton Corner Owners Association, Inc. v. Conroad Associates, L.P., No. 20A-PL-1253 (Ind. Ct. App. Jul. 6, 2020) (“Castleton Corner II”). The Association further declared bankruptcy, initiating a stay of the proceedings supplemental and the appeal in Castleton Corner II.
However, the appeal in Castleton Corner I was not stayed by the bankruptcy court, and, following certification of our opinion, the Association moved to amend the original judgment and tendered payment, via the trial court clerk, in the amount of the amended judgment to Conroad in full satisfaction of the amended judgment amount. The Association thus also moved to vacate the order in proceedings supplemental underlying the appeal in Castleton Corner II. Following the bankruptcy court’s lifting of the stay in May 2021, the trial court: granted the Association’s motions and amended the original judgment pursuant to our instructions in Castleton Corner I; ordered the trial court clerk to release the tendered payment to Conroad in satisfaction of the amount of the amended judgment; and vacated the original order in proceedings supplemental.
Conroad now appeals and raises the following three issues for our review:
I. Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the original order in proceedings supplemental due to the pending appeal of that order in Castleton Corner II.
II. Whether the Association’s motion to vacate the original order in proceedings supplemental was untimely or otherwise not permitted.
III. Whether the trial court erred when it vacated the original order in proceedings supplemental.
Conroad Associates, L.P. v. Castleton Corner Owners Association, Inc., et al.When:THU, MAR 24, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. Mathias
J. Altice
Case No:21A-PL-1125Lower Case:49D05-1612-PL-44978County:Marion
Case SummaryDonald Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to dismiss ten of the seventeen Class C felony securities-related charges against him. Johnson argues the trial court abused its discretion when it did not dismiss these ten counts because all relevant charges were filed outside the statute of limitations for the crimes alleged. Additionally, he argues dismissal is warranted because the State did not allege the "knowingly" element of the crimes in its charging information and the charging information are otherwise deficient because they fail to state the relevant offenses with sufficient certainty for Johnson to provide a defense. Finally, Johnson contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to dismiss because none of the instruments in question were securities for the purposes of the Indiana Uniform Securities Act.
Donald Johnson v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, MAR 24, 2022 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Riley
J. May
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-CR-1234County:Porter
Case SummaryJames Lee Campbell was convicted of murder and Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and the trial court ordered him to serve a seventy-two year sentence. Campbell appeals, contending that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. Campbell also argues that trial court improperly relied upon two aggravating circumstances in sentencing: that the offense was committed in the presence or within hearing of an individual less than eighteen years of age, and that Campbell threatened to harm a witness if they told anyone about the offense. He also claims the trial court failed to adequately consider the only mitigating factor, that Campbell does not have a prior criminal history. Campbell requests that the Court of Appeals revise his sentence to an aggregate term of sixty years through its authority under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The State argues that Campbell waived his argument that his sentence is inappropriate for failing to present a cogent argument in his brief.
James Lee Campbell v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, MAR 22, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Mathias
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CR-2086Lower Case:75C01-1912-MR-1County:Starke
Case SummaryRyan S. Gookins and Richard A. Rectenwal, III, both worked for Central Processing Corp. (Central), which directed them to perform duties for County Materials Corp. (County). County designed and made precast concrete structures for construction projects. Gookins and Rectenwal quit working for Central and later helped to found Indiana Precast, Inc. (Precast). County and Central sued Precast, Gookins, and Rectenwal, claiming Gookins and Rectenwal had breached contracts with them, and further claiming that Precast, Gookins, and Rectenwal had unfairly interfered with their relationships with employees and customers. At trial, the court dismissed Central from the case and dismissed County’s claim for punitive damages. Later, the jury rejected County’s remaining claims. County and Central appealed after the trial court denied their motion to correct error and motion for relief from judgment.
County Materials Corp., et al. v. Indiana Precast, Inc., et al.When:MON, MAR 14, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Najam
J. Friedlander
J. Bradford
Case No:20A-PL-1683Lower Case:30D01-1702-PL-219County:Hancock
Case SummaryIsabella Reynolds filed a negligence lawsuit against the Tippecanoe School Corporation (“TSC”) after she suffered injuries during a high school cheerleading routine. Reynolds’ negligence claim was based, in part, on TSC’s failure to provide proper supervision. The trial court denied TSC’s motion for summary judgment as it pertained to whether TSC failed to provide proper supervision. On a motion to reconsider, the trial court again denied summary judgment on that claim based on the doctrine of incurred risk. In this interlocutory appeal, TSC argues the trial court erroneously found 1) that a claim of negligent supervision brought by an athlete against her coach is not subject to this State’s protections against personal injury claims by one sports participant against another for injuries occurring in the ordinary conduct of the sport, and 2) that the “incurred risk” doctrine does not bar a negligent supervision claim brought by an athlete against her coach. Reynolds argues that the trial court did not err because a sports participant is only protected from injuries that they cause not claims of negligent supervision, and that the “incurred risk” doctrine does not apply here because the risks associated with cheerleading are distinct from the risks of negligent supervision.
Tippecanoe School Corporation v. Isabella Reynolds, et al.When:FRI, MAR 11, 2022 at 12:15 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Riley
J. Robb
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-CT-1482Lower Case:79C01-1909-CT-127County:Tippecanoe
Case SummaryWest was charged with computer trespass and conversion after she allegedly accessed nude photos another woman sent to West’s boyfriend over Snapchat and posted the photos to Facebook. West moved to dismiss the computer trespass charge, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute a crime. The Monroe Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. West v. State, 177 N.E.3d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Kelsie L. West v. State of IndianaWhen:WED, MAR 9, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:22S-CR-00043Lower Case:21A-CR-00404
53C09-1909-CM-002233County:Monroe
Case SummaryThis is the second appeal in this case. Parkview Hospital Inc. v. American Family Insurance Co., 151 N.E.3d 1218, 1227, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied (“Parkview I”), was an interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of cross-motions for summary judgment. In Parkview I we held: (1) that an Ohio trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Parkview Hospital, Inc.’s (“Parkview’s”) Indiana hospital lien, and, therefore, that the Ohio trial court’s order which purported to extinguish the hospital lien was void ab initio and not entitled to full faith and credit; and (2) that American Family Insurance Co. (“American Family”) violated Indiana’s Hospital Lien Act, Ind. Code §§ 32-33-4-1 to -8 (2015), when it paid $50,000 to the original plaintiffs, pursuant to the Ohio court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement, without having satisfied Parkview’s perfected hospital lien. In Parkview I we affirmed “the trial court’s denial of American Family’s motion for summary judgment” but we reversed “the trial court’s denial of Parkview’s motion for summary judgment,” and remanded “for proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Id. at 1229.
On remand, following a damages hearing, the trial court ordered American Family to pay Parkview $95,541.88, the full amount of Parkview’s hospital lien, as well as Parkview’s reasonable attorney’s fees.
American Family then filed a motion to correct error and asserted that Parkview was not entitled to the full amount of its lien but, rather, was limited to the $50,000 settlement, which the Ohio trial court had ordered American Family to pay. American Family also asserted that the Hospital Lien Act did not permit Parkview to recover attorney’s fees. After a hearing, the trial court denied American Family’s motion to limit Parkview’s recovery to the $50,000 settlement but granted American Family’s motion to deny Parkview attorney’s fees.
Parkview now appeals the trial court’s Order on American Family’s motion to correct error and the Court’s Amended Judgment and raises the following issues for review:
-
Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction on remand to consider whether Parkview’s summary judgment included attorney’s fees.
-
Whether American Family’s motion to correct error challenging Parkview’s damage award is barred by the law of the case doctrine, res judicata, or forfeiture.
-
Whether the trial court erred when it determined that Parkview is not entitled to attorney’s fees.
American Family cross-appeals and raises the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred when it awarded damages of $95,541.88 to Parkview, the entire of amount of Parkview’s hospital lien, rather than limit damages to the $50,000 settlement American Family has paid, which is American Family’s policy limits.
Parkview Hospital, Inc. v. American Family Ins.When:THU, MAR 3, 2022 at 3:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Baker
J. Najam
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-PL-1369Lower Case:02D03-1807-PL-254County:Allen
Case SummaryU.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corporation contracted to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indianapolis. After a leak caused water damage, several parties sued USASC. The trial court denied USASC’s motions for summary judgment, and USASC now brings this interlocutory appeal.
U.S. Automatic Sprinkler Corporation v. Erie Insurance Exchange et al.When:WED, MAR 2, 2022 at 2:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Najam
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-CT-580Lower Case:49D12-1706-CT-24859County:Marion
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
A jury found Fix guilty of four felonies for breaking into a home and robbing its owner. When first entering the home, Fix was unarmed, but he later obtained the owner’s gun and used it against him. The Madison Circuit Court entered judgment of conviction for burglary while armed with a deadly weapon, robbery, and theft, sentencing Fix to a total of 38.5 years, with the individual sentences run consecutively. Fix appealed. Because Fix was not armed when he first entered the home, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the trial court to vacate Fix’s conviction for burglary while armed with a deadly weapon, modify his other convictions, and resentence him. Fix v. State, 177 N.E.3d 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Zachary Allen Fix v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, FEB 24, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:22S-CR-00007Lower Case:20A-CR-01566
48C03-1803-F2-000792County:Madison
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
Illinois Casualty sued, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured bar and bar-related entities under business owner’s insurance policies, in connection with claims made by a family injured by an intoxicated motorist who consumed alcohol at one of the insureds. The Howard Superior Court granted Illinois Casualty’s motion for summary judgment, citing the insurance policies’ alcohol exclusion. The Court of Appeals reversed. Ebert v. Illinois Cas. Co., 177 N.E.3d 435 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
William Ebert, Michelle Ebert, Cora Ebert, Alexandra Ebert, Dan the Man, LLC, Daniel Parks, and D&D Saloon, LLC v. Illinois Casualty CompanyWhen:THU, FEB 24, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:22S-PL-00008Lower Case:21A-PL-00069
34D02-1807-PL-000555County:Howard
Case SummaryJustin Yeary appeals his conviction of and sentence for Level 1 felony dealing in a narcotic causing death (Indiana Code § 35-42-1-1.5), also known as the "Drug-Induced Homicide" statute. He argues the statute is unconstitutionally vague based on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because it denies him due process by excluding from possible defenses to the crime Humphrey’s voluntary ingestion of the controlled substance. Yeary also contends the commission of the crime is “based nearly exclusively on the future actions of others, which fails to put a person on reasonable notice that the statute will apply to his conduct and allows for arbitrary enforcement of the statute.” Yeary additionally challenges the trial court’s decisions to (1) refuse to admit evidence of possibly exculpatory text messages and (2) deny his request for jury instructions regarding the issue of causation. Even considering these alleged errors, Yeary asserts the State did not present sufficient evidence he committed Drug-Induced Homicide because the State did not produce evidence that Yeary was the sole source of the fentanyl found in Humphrey’s blood at the time of his death. Finally, Yeary argues his thirty-five year sentence is inappropriate based on the nature of the crime and his character.
Justin Ryan Yeary v. State of IndianaWhen:WED, FEB 9, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Brown
J. Weissmann
Case No:21A-CR-1080Lower Case:29D01-1904-F4-002783County:Hamilton
Case SummaryIn 2017, 20-year-old Neukam was charged with felony child molesting and felony rape for crimes allegedly committed when he was 18. In 2019, the State filed a juvenile delinquency petition in the juvenile court against Neukam, then age 22, alleging he committed eight acts of child molesting when he was between ages 14 and 17. The delinquency case was dismissed following this Court’s opinion in D.P. v. State, 151 N.E.3d 1210 (Ind. 2020), and the State then moved to amend the charging information in Neukam’s adult criminal case to include the charges from the dismissed juvenile delinquency petition. The Dubois Circuit Court denied the State’s motion to amend, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Neukam, 174 N.E.3d 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), reh’g denied, vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
State of Indiana v. Anthony J. NeukamWhen:THU, FEB 3, 2022 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CR-00567Lower Case:19C01-1711-F3-001157
20A-CR-02006County:Dubois
Case SummaryThe Hendricks Circuit Court entered a dissolution decree that assigned to Elizabeth the student loans she incurred before the marriage, awarded Michael the premarital values of his retirement accounts and life insurance policies, and awarded Elizabeth 55% of the remaining marital estate. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding the “gross disparity” in the division of the marital estate “renders the division of property unjust and unreasonable.” Roetter v. Roetter, 174 N.E.3d 1144, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Elizabeth Roetter v. Michael P. Roetter, Jr.When:THU, FEB 3, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-DC-00568Lower Case:20A-DC-02150
32D01-1911-DC-000673County:Hendricks
Case Summary*RESCHEDULED FROM NOV. 2, 2021 TO JAN. 27, 2022 AT 9:00 A.M.***
Johnson sued the City for negligence in connection with injuries she suffered when the bicycle she was riding collided with a pothole in the street. The LaPorte Superior Court granted the City summary judgment after concluding the City is immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, which provides immunity if the loss results from the government’s “performance of a discretionary function[.]” Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(7). The Court of Appeals affirmed. Johnson v. City of Michigan City, No. 21A-CT-114, 2021 WL 2350887 (Ind. Ct. App. June 9, 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Laura M. Johnson v. City of Michigan CityWhen:THU, JAN 27, 2022 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CT-00423Lower Case:21A-CT-00114
49D01-1812-CT-002294County:LaPorte
Case SummaryDue to technical issues, this argument was held in the Court of Appeals Courtroom.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
McDonald pleaded guilty to four felony charges and one misdemeanor charge and to being a habitual vehicular substance offender (HVSO). The Cass Superior Court accepted the plea and convicted and sentenced McDonald on each of the five charges and the HVSO enhancement. The Court of Appeals concluded, in part, that McDonald could not raise a double jeopardy challenge to his multiple felony convictions on direct appeal and that, although the court erred in finding it could not suspend the HVSO enhancement, remand for resentencing was unnecessary because the record indicates the court would have imposed the same sentence had it known the enhancement was subject to suspension. McDonald v. State, 173 N.E.3d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. pending. McDonald has petitioned this Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
Carl Eugene McDonald v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, JAN 20, 2022 at 9:30 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21A-CR-00363Lower Case:09D01-1907-F6-000250County:Cass
Case SummaryAppellant-Defendant Peggy Sue Higginson was charged with murdering her husband. Higginson filed her notice of intent to raise a claim of self-defense and introduce effects-of-battery evidence and retained Dr. Polly Westcott as her expert witness. On interlocutory appeal, Higginson argues that the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Westcott’s testimony concerning Peggy’s PTSD as it should be admissible as effects-of-battery evidence to support a claim of self-defense.
Peggy Sue Higginson v. State of IndianaWhen:MON, JAN 10, 2022 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Bradford
J. Altice
Case No:21A-CR-1169Lower Case:65C01-1806-MR-293County:Posey
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
The Estate of Dona Johnson filed a wrongful death complaint against B&T Bulk and its truck driver after an accident occurred while the driver was en route to pick up a load of nonhazardous materials in Logansport and deliver it to South Bend. B&T had a commercial automobile policy with Progressive, which sought a judgment declaring that the MCS-90 endorsement to its policy does not apply to the accident. The Carroll Circuit Court entered summary judgment for B&T and the Estate. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that under Indiana law the minimum levels of financial responsibility in 49 C.F.R. 387 apply to a motor carrier transporting nonhazardous materials intrastate, and that the B&T driver was engaged in the “transportation” of property at the time of the accident. Progressive Se. Ins. Co. v. B&T Bulk LLC, 170 N.E.3d 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. This Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company v. B&T Bulk, LLC, Bruce A. Brown, Robin S. Johnson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dona S. Johnson, Robin S. Johnson, Individually, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyWhen:THU, DEC 16, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CT-00496Lower Case:08C01-1811-CT-000013
20A-CT-01765County:Carroll
Case SummaryAmanda Henry injured the tip of her ring finger and sought treatment at Community Hospital-Munster. While there, x-ray images were taken of her finger, which had been fractured, and she was advised to take a few days off work at her job as a dog groomer. After Amanda returned to work, her employer showed her and a co-worker, x-ray images of Amanda’s finger. Amanda’s employer’s husband was a radiological technician at Community Hospital-Munster, and though not involved in Amanda’s care, had accessed the images and shared them with his wife, Amanda’s employer. Amanda filed a complaint against Community Healthcare System Community Hospital alleging general negligence. We reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint under Trial Rule 12 and remanded the matter for further proceedings. This appeal arises from the trial court’s order after remand granting summary judgment in favor of Community Healthcare System Community Hospital.
Amanda Henry v. Community Healthcare System Community HospitalWhen:TUE, DEC 14, 2021 at 2:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Baker
J. Altice
J. Tavitas
Case No:21A-CT-2150Lower Case:45D01-1811-CT-803County:Lake
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
After Franciscan settled a patient’s medical malpractice claim against it, Franciscan sought indemnification from Lake Imaging. When Lake Imaging refused, Franciscan sued for breach of the indemnification clause in the radiologist services agreement between the parties. The Johnson Superior Court, finding it had no subject matter jurisdiction because Franciscan failed to present its claim to a medical-review panel, dismissed the case without prejudice. Lake Imaging appealed, and Franciscan cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Lake Imaging, LLC v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc., 171 N.E.3d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Lake Imaging, LLC v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc. f/d/b/a Saint Margaret Mercy Health Centers, ProAssurance Indemnity Company, Inc.When:THU, DEC 9, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CT-00478Lower Case:20A-CT-01490
41D04-1810-CT-000157County:Johnson
Case SummaryThe State filed a civil action seeking forfeiture of money seized from Abbott, who was convicted on felony drug charges. The Elkhart Superior Court denied Abbott’s request for the appointment of counsel at public expense and granted the State’s motion for summary judgment under the racketeering-forfeiture statute. The Court of Appeals reversed the entry of summary judgment for the State and affirmed the denial of Abbott’s request for appointed counsel, with a majority concluding Abbott could use the seized money to fund his defense to the forfeiture complaint. Abbott v. State, 164 N.E.3d 736 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted the State’s petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Terry L. Abbott v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, DEC 9, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-PL-00347Lower Case:19A-PL-01635
20D03-1506-PL-000140County:Elkhart
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
After Church was charged with child molesting, he filed a petition to depose his accuser. The Marion Superior Court denied Church’s petition pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-40-5-11.5, which prevents a defendant from deposing certain child victims unless the prosecutor consents to the deposition or the trial court determines it is necessary due to extraordinary circumstances and in the interest of justice. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the statute impermissibly conflicts with the Indiana Trial Rules. Church v. State, 173 N.E.3d 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. pending. The State has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction over the appeal.
Steven Church v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, DEC 2, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21A-CR-00068Lower Case:49D30-2003-F1-010092County:Marion
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
The Department of Transportation’s Commissioner upheld an administrative order requiring property owners to remove a long-existing billboard along a highway. The Hamilton Superior Court granted the property owners’ petition for judicial review and vacated the Commissioner’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held the administrative order was not barred by the statute of limitations or the doctrines of equitable estoppel or fundamental fairness. Ind. Dep’t of Transp. v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC, 167 N.E.3d 321 (Ind. Ct. App.), aff’d on reh'g, 171 N.E.3d 1070 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. pending. The owners petition the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
Indiana Department of Transportation v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC, Stephen Roudebush, and Jeffory RoudebushWhen:THU, DEC 2, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:20A-PL-00215Lower Case:29D01-1905-PL-004715County:Hamilton
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Courtroom will be limited to the Judge, Court personnel, and no more than two attorneys per arguing party. (A live webcast will be available outside the Court and remotely.)
On May 4, 2020, after unsuccessfully seeking a refund of the motor carrier fuel tax (the “MCFT”) paid to the Indiana Department of State Revenue for the 2016 and 2017 tax years, the Petitioners, three small business motor carriers, filed an appeal with the Indiana Tax Court. On September 17, 2021, the parties moved for motion for summary judgment. The parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment concern whether the Indiana Toll Road has been privately maintained since April of 2006 by virtue of the Indiana Toll Road Concession and Lease Agreement, and thus, has not constituted a highway for the purpose of the MCFT for over fifteen years.
B.L. Reever Transport, Inc. et al. v. Ind. Dep't of RevenueWhen:WED, DEC 1, 2021 at 9:30 AM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:20T-TA-00009County:MarionLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case SummaryThe State alleged that Rhett Martin and Duane Muse went to Dan Riegle’s house in the early morning hours of December 6, 2019, shot Riegle because he had allegedly installed a secret camera in the bathroom of Martin’s girlfriend’s house to spy on Martin’s girlfriend’s daughter, and set fire to Riegle’s house. The State charged Martin with murder, two counts of felony murder, and arson, and the State separately charged Muse with similar crimes. Martin subpoenaed Muse to testify. Outside the presence of the jury, Muse’s attorney stated that, if Muse was called to testify, he would invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Martin still desired to call Muse to testify in front of the jury, but the trial court denied Martin’s request. The jury found Martin guilty on all counts. On appeal, Martin asserts (1) his right to present a defense was violated when he was prevented from calling his accomplice to the stand to either testify or invoke his right against self-incrimination; (2) the record should be corrected to reflect that the convictions for felony murder were vacated with the entry of a conviction and sentence for murder; (3) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions for murder and arson; and (4) his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
Rhett Allen Martin v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, NOV 30, 2021 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bailey
J. Brown
J. Weissmann
Case No:20A-CR-2326Lower Case:04C01-1912-MR-284County:Benton
Case SummaryShaun A. Smith was convicted of dealing methamphetamine as a Level 5 felony. He appeals his conviction, claiming the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence text messages that were extracted from his cell phone because they were not properly authenticated. Smith also argues that the State’s redacted report of the text messages affected his substantial rights because the redacted report was confusing to the jury.
Shaun A. Smith v. State of IndianaWhen:MON, NOV 22, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. May
J. Altice
J. Molter
Case No:21A-CR-956Lower Case:09D02-2006-F5-000039County:Cass
Case Summary
Evidence indicates that Cory Chapman, a high school band director, sent memes involving jokes of a sexual nature to a former student. The State charged Chapman with disseminating matter harmful to minors. Chapman moved for a preliminary determination of whether the matter is probably harmful to minors. Following a hearing, the trial court answered that question in the affirmative. Chapman now appeals contending that the memes do not meet the standard of “probably harmful to minors” and that, if they do meet the standard, it constitutes a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Cory Chapman v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, NOV 18, 2021 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Robb
J. Mathias
J. Shepard
Case No:21A-CR-421Lower Case:28D01-1912-F6-000261County:Greene
Case SummaryCleveland Christopher Bynum was convicted in 2001 of murdering five people and sentenced to 300 years imprisonment. This appeal from the denial of his successive petition for postconviction relief is the latest in his series of attempts to set aside those convictions. He claims the trial court erred in rejecting his claim that he is entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Such evidence included a 2014 cell phone recording of another man confessing to the murders shortly before that man was killed.
Cleveland Christopher Bynum v. State of IndianaWhen:TUE, NOV 16, 2021 at 1:00 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Mathias
J. Weissmann
J. Molter
Case No:21A-PC-608Lower Case:45G02-0208-PC-15County:Lake
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Courtroom will be limited to the Judge, Court personnel, and no more than two attorneys per arguing party. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
Camelot Company, LLC is a convenience market located in Columbus, Indiana. In 2017, it had a base rate of $18 per square foot and in 2018 the land base rate changed to $19 per square foot. The change was a result of a new land order prepared by the Bartholomew County Assessor. The Bartholomew County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (“PTABOA”) approved the new land order on February 8, 2018, which the Assessor then applied to the January 1, 2018, assessments.
On September 2, 2019, Camelot, believing the new land order should not be applied to the 2018 assessment, filed a Form 130 Correction of Error. On January 7, 2020, the PTABOA held a hearing denying Camelot’s appeal. Camelot subsequently filed an appeal with the Indiana Board of Tax Review on January 28, 2020.
The Indiana Board held a telephonic hearing on November 10, 2020, and issued its Final Determination on February 5, 2021. Camelot’s appeal alleged a clerical, mathematical, or typographical mistake, which can be filed within three years after the taxes were first due. By contrast, a taxpayer has 45 days to appeal the assessed value of its property. The Indiana Board determined that Camelot’s appeal was not timely because it was ultimately challenging the assessed value of its property. The Indiana Board further stated that Camelot did not meet its evidentiary burden because it only contested the methodology used by the Assessor to calculate its assessment.
On March 19, 2021, Camelot filed an original tax appeal in the Tax Court. In its appeal, it asserts that the Indiana Board wrongly determined that its Form 130 appeal was filed untimely. Specifically, Camelot asserts that the error here was an objective one; either the proper land order was applied, or it was not. Furthermore, Camelot contends that the land order was required to have been approved by the PTABOA before the January 1, 2018, assessment date in order to apply to the 2018 assessment. Since it was not approved until after the assessment date, Camelot argues that the 2017 base rate should apply. In response, the Assessor claims that the Indiana Board correctly determined that Camelot was challenging its assessed value and therefore, its appeal was not timely filed.
Camelot Company LLC v. Bartholomew Co. AssessorWhen:TUE, NOV 16, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:21T-TA-00011County:BartholomewLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
Duke Energy filed a petition to increase its rates, which the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (“IURC”) granted in part. The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counsel and consumer groups appealed and challenged the IURC’s approval of Duke Energy’s recovery of costs it had incurred to remediate coal ash ponds, allocation of costs between retail and wholesale consumers, and recovery of operating and maintenance costs for the Edwardsport facility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the IURC. Ind. Office of Util. Consumer Counselor v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, 169 N.E.3d 417 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Ind. Office of Util. Consumer Counselor, Citizens Action Coal. of Ind., Envtl. Working Group, et al. v. Duke Energy, Ind., LLC, Ind. Util. Regulatory Comm'n, et al.When:TUE, NOV 16, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-EX-00432Lower Case:20A-EX-01404
45253County:Marion
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, access to the Courtroom will be limited to the Judge, limited Court personnel, and no more than two attorneys per arguing party. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
Riley Roberts Park, LP owns the Davlan Apartments, a mixed-use building located along Massachusetts Avenue in downtown Indianapolis. A variety of one- or two-bedroom apartments, a few restaurants, a coffee shop, a jewelry store, and other commercial establishments are located within the Davlan. Thirty-six of the Davlan’s fifty residential units are set aside for low-income individuals and families.
In 2006, Riley Roberts Park filed an application for exemption with the Marion County Assessor, claiming that the Davlan should be exempt from property taxes because it was owned, occupied, and exclusively used for charitable purposes. The Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA), however, determined that only fifty-four percent (54%) of the property qualified for an exemption. The Davlan remained partially exempt from property taxes for the next three years. Then, in March of 2011, the PTABOA revoked Riley Roberts Park’s exemption for the 2010 tax year.
In April of 2011, Riley Roberts Park appealed to the Indiana Board of Tax Review, claiming that the PTABOA lacked the statutory authority to revoke its 2010 exemption. Riley Roberts Park also claimed that the PTABOA’s erred in revoking its exemption because the Davlan was owned, occupied, and used for charitable purposes. Moreover, Riley Roberts Park subsequently claimed that its property remained eligible for an exemption during the 2011 through 2016 tax years. In May of 2021, the Indiana Board issued a final determination that upheld the PTABOA’s revocation of Riley Roberts Park’s 2010 exemption and concluded that the Davlan was not owned, occupied, and predominantly used for charitable purposes during the 2010 through 2016 tax years.
On appeal, Riley Roberts Park asserts that the Indiana Board’s final determination is erroneous and must be reversed.
Riley-Roberts Park, LP v. Joseph O'Connor, in his official capacity as Marion County AssessorWhen:THU, NOV 4, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. Wentworth
Case No:21T-TA-00024County:MarionLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
The Marion Superior Court granted in part the NCAA’s motion for a protective order and did not rule on the NCAA’s motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B). The court denied the NCAA’s second motion for protective order and granted the NCAA’s motion to certify the order under Rule 14(B). The Court of Appeals dismissed the NCAA’s appeal, concluding the second motion amounted to a motion to reconsider that did not extend the time to appeal, and the appeal therefore was untimely. Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n v. Finnerty, 170 N.E.3d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jennifer Finnerty, Individually, and as Pers. Rep. of Estate of Cullen Finnerty, Carol Anderson, Individually, and as Pers. Rep. of Estate of Neal Anderson, et al.When:TUE, NOV 2, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CT-00409Lower Case:20A-CT-01069
49D01-1808-CT-033896
49D01-1901-CT-002954
49D01-1905-CT-021770County:Marion
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
The Lake Superior Court entered summary judgment for U.S. Steel on Service Steel Warehouse’s claim to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Indiana’s Mechanic’s Lien Statute does not require on-site labor for subcontractor status, and that “[t]he essential feature making one a subcontractor, rather than a material supplier, is the performance of a definite and substantial portion of the project’s prime contract.” Serv. Steel Warehouse Co., L.P. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 171 N.E.3d 115, 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Service Steel Warehouse Company, L.P. v. United States Steel CorporationWhen:THU, OCT 28, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CC-00408Lower Case:20A-CC-01643
45D02-1311-CC-000828County:Lake
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
The Lake County Board of Commissioners and Lake County Council (collectively, “the County”) sued the State of Indiana and others, seeking a judgment declaring that because two Lake County probation officers are state employees, the State is required to represent and indemnify them in pending litigation. The Marion Superior Court granted the State-related parties summary judgment, concluding that the County is responsible for paying the costs of defense and indemnification of its probation officers. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commissioners v. State, 170 N.E.3d 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. pending. The County petitions this Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
Lake Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs and Lake Cty. Council v. State of Ind., Office of the Attorney Gen. of the State of Ind., Lake Cty. Probation Dep't, Jan Parsons, in her official capacity as Dir. and Chief Probation Officer of felony Probation Dep't of the Superior Courts of Lake Cty. Criminal Div., et al.When:THU, OCT 28, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:20A-MI-01527Lower Case:49D06-1906-MI-024203County:Lake
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
DeWees was charged with Level 2 felony aiding, inducing, or causing burglary. The Clay Superior Court denied her motion to reduce her $50,000 cash-only bond. While DeWees’s appeal of this order was pending, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to release her to home detention with GPS monitoring. It later held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to reduce bond. DeWees v. State, 163 N.E.3d 357 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Sierra M. DeWees v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, OCT 21, 2021 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CR-00410Lower Case:11D01-2003-F2-000306
20A-CR-01146County:Clay
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
Ramirez was charged with Level 4 felony child molesting. During discovery, the prosecutor’s office informed defense counsel that, pursuant to local rule, it would not provide counsel with a copy of the victim’s forensic interview; instead, the video could be viewed at the prosecutor’s office. The Allen Superior Court denied the defense’s motion to compel a copy of the video. It also denied the defense’s motion to continue, filed the morning of trial, after the prosecutor’s office disclosed new information it received from the victim the day before trial. The jury found Ramirez guilty, and he was sentenced to six years in prison. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Ramirez v. State, No. 20A-CR-1982, 2021 WL 180581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Juventino V. Ramirez v. State of IndianaWhen:THU, OCT 21, 2021 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-CR-00373Lower Case:02D05-1910-F4-000103
20A-CR-01982County:Allen
Case SummaryDue to the COVID-19 pandemic, masks are required in the Courtroom, and public seating is limited for social distancing. (A live webcast will be available outside the Courtroom and remotely.)
The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration denied Medicaid reimbursement to ResCare, an operator of intermediate care facilities for people with intellectual disabilities, for over-the-counter drugs prescribed to its residents by doctors. The Marion Superior Court denied ResCare’s petition for judicial review and declined ResCare’s alternative request for declaratory judgment on whether it could charge the cost of these drugs to its residents’ personal fund accounts. The Court of Appeals affirmed. ResCare Health Services, Inc. v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration - Office of Medicaid Policy and Planning, 169 N.E.3d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ResCare Health Services, Inc. v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration - Office of Medicaid Policy and PlanningWhen:THU, OCT 21, 2021 at 9:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. David
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
Case No:21S-MI-00372Lower Case:20A-MI-01025
49D03-1908-MI-032821County:Marion