Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A steel fabrication company deposited solid waste on a landowner's property, after which the landowner (Plaintiff) filed a complaint seeking damages against multiple parties (Defendants) and on multiple grounds, including a claim for an environmental legal action (ELA). Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on his environmental legal action claim and sought to impose corporate liability on Defendants. Defendants filed cross motions for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims, except for his claim of negligence. The trial court denied Plaintiff's motions and granted Defendants' motions as to all claims, leaving for trial only Plaintiff's negligence claim and the claims of potential liability against Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that summary judgment was (1) not proper for either party on Plaintiff's ELA claim; (2) not proper for Defendants on Plaintiff's illegal dumping, fraud, nuisance, and trespass claims; (3) proper for Defendants on Plaintiff's unjust enrichment and intentional torts claims; (4) proper for certain defendants on Plaintiff's responsible corporate officer claim but improper as to others; and (5) proper for Plaintiff on his claims against one defendant as responsible corporate officer. View "Reed v. Reid" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of child molesting and sentenced to an aggregate term of eighty years. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions but remanded the cause to the trial court with instructions to impose an aggregate term of forty years, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion sentencing Defendant. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thereby vacating the decision of the court of appeals, and summarily affirmed the portion of the court of appeals' decision concerning the majority of Defendant's claims. The Court then affirmed the judgment of the trial court regarding Defendant's sentence, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Defendant's sentence. View "Kimbrough v. State" on Justia Law

Patients Abby Allen and Walter Moore sought medical treatment at Clarian North Hospital, which was owned by Clarian Health Partners. After Allen, who was uninsured and not covered by Medicare or Medicaid, received services, the hospital billed Allen its "chargemaster" rates in accordance with a contract between Allen and Clarian. Patients' class action complaint alleged breach of contract and sought declaratory judgment that the rates the hospital billed its uninsured patients were unreasonable and unenforceable. The trial court granted Clarian's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the issue of reasonableness required resolution by a fact-finder. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that Patients' agreement to pay the hospital for the medical services they received in the context of a contract they formed with Clarian was not indefinite and referred to Clarian's chargemaster. As a result, the Court could not impute a "reasonable" price term into the contract. View "Allen v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff experienced dizziness and difficulty walking, she was admitted into a medical clinic (Clinic) and seen by the on-duty physician (Doctor). Doctor diagnosed Plaintiff with vertigo. Two days later, Plaintiff was unable to move her right arm or leg and was later diagnosed with having suffered a stroke. Defendant subsequently filed a complaint alleging negligence by Doctor and Clinic (collectively, Defendants) for the failure to diagnose a transient stroke. After a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1.25 million but denied Plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest. The court thereafter denied Defendants' motion for a new trial based upon the cumulative effect of Plaintiff's counsel's alleged unprofessional conduct during the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) denying Defendants' motion for a new trial, despite Plaintiff's counsel's dissatisfying behavior; and (2) denying the discretionary award of prejudgment interest. View "Wisner v. Laney" on Justia Law

After an automobile collision involving Driver, Plaintiff sued Driver. When Driver passed away, Plaintiff amended her complaint to substitute the Administrator of Driver's estate. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded her $210,000 in damages. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion asking the trial court to award her prejudgment interest pursuant to the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute (TPIS). The trial court enied Plaintiff's motion because her damages were not ascertainable within a time frame that justified an award of prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the TPIS abrogates and supplants the common law prejudgment interest rules in cases covered by the statute; and (2) Plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest should have been evaluated as provided in the statute and not on abrogated common law. Remanded for reconsideration of the motion. View "Kosarko v. Padula" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's vehicle was rear-ended by Driver's vehicle. Plaintiff sued Driver and settled with his insurer for $50,000, the maximum of Driver's automobile liability policy. Plaintiff then sought an additional $50,000 under her underinsured motorist (UIM) policy with State Farm. State Farm declined to award the requested amount. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $50,000. The trial court declined Plaintiff's motion for prejudgment interest pursuant to the Tort Prejudgment Interest Statute (TPIS). Plaintiff appealed the trial court's denial of her motion for prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the TPIS does apply to UIM coverage disputes; (2) because prejudgment interest is a collateral litigation expense, it can be awarded in excess of an insured's UIM policy limits; but (3) Plaintiff was not entitled to prejudgment interest because the trial court acted within its discretion when it denied her request for prejudgment interest. View "Inman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The day after thirteen-month-old I.A. underwent surgery performed by Defendant, I.A. died. Plaintiff, I.A.'s mother, filed a medical malpractice claim against Defendant. After a jury trial, Defendant was held liable in the amount of $1,165,000. The trial court denied Plaintiff's request for pre-judgment interest. Defendant appealed, raising three allegations of error, and Plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of her request for prejudgment interest. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the court of appeals opinion relating to Defendant's issues but reversed the trial court's decision to deny Defendant prejudgment interest based upon a defective settlement letter, holding (1) Defendant's settlement letter did comply with Ind. Code 34-51-4-6; and (2) the award of prejudgment interest is neither automatic nor required and is left to the discretion of the trial court. Remanded. View "Alsheik v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

An encounter between a tenured professor at a private university and his department head turned into a formal complaint of harassment against the professor. After extensive internal proceedings, the professor's tenure was rescinded and he was dismissed from the university's faculty. The professor filed suit claiming breach of his employment contract and tenure agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the university. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding (1) the professor's conduct constituted harassment under the terms of his employment contract such that the university could dismiss him; (2) the university did not deny the professor the procedural entitlements afforded under the professor's employment contract's terms; and (3) the university did not deprive the professor of due process. View "Haegert v. Univ. of Evansville" on Justia Law

In this case, a mother sought to relocate out-of-state with her child. The father filed a motion to modify custody and prevent the child's relocation. After an evidentiary hearing, which was conducted over two days with ten witnesses testifying, the trial court ruled in the father's favor. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reiterated that in family law matters, trial courts are afforded considerable deference. The Court then affirmed, holding that the trial court's judgment was well supported by the findings, and neither the judgment nor the findings were clearly erroneous. View "D.C. v. J.A.C." on Justia Law

After David Lawler obtained a civil judgment against Michael Kucholick's girlfriend for unpaid rent, Kucholick drove by Lawler's rural home and fired two shots into the home. Kucholick was found guilty of criminal recklessness and criminal mischief. The trial court sentenced Kucholick to an enhanced term of seven years for criminal recklessness and six months for criminal mischief, to be served concurrently. Kucholick appealed, arguing in part that his sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The court of appeals concluded that Kucholick had met his burden of establishing that his sentence was inappropriate. The Supreme Court agreed and held that a modest sentence revision was warranted in this case. The Court then directed revision of Kucholick's aggregate sentence to an advisory term of four years, all executed. View "Kucholick v. State" on Justia Law