Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An Indiana trust beneficiary sued the trustee, an Indiana bank, in an Indiana trial court over the disposal of trust property. The trust, which holds Illinois real estate, is governed by Illinois law and includes mostly Illinois beneficiaries. The trial court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, questioning the appropriateness of resolving Illinois-centered issues in Indiana.The Vigo Superior Court dismissed the case, agreeing with the trustee that Indiana lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the trust was administered in Illinois. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction over the Indiana suit despite the trust's Illinois connections. The appellate court distinguished this case from In re Alford Trust, which held that Indiana courts lack jurisdiction over trusts administered exclusively in another state.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The court clarified that Indiana superior courts have broad civil jurisdiction, including over trust disputes, and that venue provisions do not affect jurisdiction. The court disapproved of the Alford Trust decision for conflating jurisdiction with prudential concerns like venue and choice of law. The court noted that while the trial court has jurisdiction, it may still dismiss the case under doctrines like comity or forum non conveniens if appropriate. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Tingley v. First Financial Bank" on Justia Law

Johnny Brown was born on August 27, 1998. On August 26, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition in juvenile court alleging that Brown committed child molesting between June 1, 2015, and August 31, 2016. The juvenile court authorized the petition and held an initial hearing. After Brown turned twenty-one, he objected to the juvenile court's jurisdiction, but the court denied his objection and later waived the case to adult court. Brown was convicted of Class C felony child molesting in adult court.Brown filed a motion to correct error, arguing that the adult court lacked jurisdiction because he was over twenty-one at the time of the waiver hearing. The trial court denied his motion and sentenced him to four years, with credit for time served and the remainder suspended to probation. Brown appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, holding that retroactive application of new jurisdictional amendments would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of Brown's trial because he fell into a jurisdictional gap identified in previous cases. The court also determined that the amendments to the jurisdiction statutes, enacted while Brown's case was pending, did not apply retroactively. As a result, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed Brown's conviction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Brown v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Hari and Saranya Nagireddy, live next to a property owned by Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC, which is being developed to house up to ten residents with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. After Willow Haven obtained a building permit from Carmel, the Nagireddys sued, seeking a declaration that the proposed use would be a public nuisance as it would violate Carmel’s unified development ordinance (UDO). They also obtained a preliminary injunction against further construction.The Hamilton Superior Court denied Willow Haven’s motion to dismiss and issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the Nagireddys did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and were likely to succeed on their claim. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, with a majority holding that the Nagireddys were not required to exhaust administrative remedies and were likely to succeed on their nuisance claim. A dissenting judge argued that the UDO was ambiguous and should be interpreted to permit Willow Haven’s land use.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the preliminary injunction was improper. The court found that the Nagireddys did not prove they were likely to win their public-nuisance claim, as they did not show that Willow Haven’s proposed land use violated the UDO at this preliminary stage. The court noted that the UDO incorporates state and federal law, which may protect Willow Haven’s land use. The court reversed the trial court’s decision, vacated the injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Willow Haven on 106th St, LLC v. Nagireddy" on Justia Law

Gerard A. Kirsch, a member of Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc., was injured while building a storage barn on the church's property. Kirsch fell from a ladder and sustained a severe arm injury. He sued the church, alleging negligence for failing to provide safe equipment and proper supervision.The Vanderburgh Superior Court denied the church's motion for summary judgment, which argued that Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 limited the church's liability. The court held that a jury must decide if the church breached any duty to Kirsch. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the statute narrowly to apply only to parts of the premises used primarily for worship services, thus allowing Kirsch's claim to proceed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the term "premises" in Indiana Code section 34-31-7-2 includes the entire parcel of land owned by the church, not just the areas used primarily for worship services. Since the church's entire property is used primarily for worship services, the statute applies, limiting the church's liability to warning of hidden dangers and refraining from intentional harm. Kirsch admitted the church breached neither duty, leading the court to grant summary judgment in favor of the church. View "Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch" on Justia Law

A motorist struck and injured a pedestrian during rush hour. The motorist claimed the pedestrian stepped out from behind a large truck, obstructing her view. Witnesses and investigating officers corroborated the motorist's account, finding no evidence of speeding, reckless driving, or distraction. The pedestrian sued the motorist and her insurer for negligence, and the motorist raised a contributory-negligence defense.The Hamilton Superior Court initially granted the pedestrian's motion to compel the motorist to produce her iPhone for inspection, limited to the hour surrounding the accident. However, the court reversed its decision upon reconsideration, citing significant privacy concerns and lack of evidence suggesting the motorist was using her phone at the time. The court also granted a motion in limine to exclude any discussion of the phone inspection at trial. A jury found the pedestrian 90% at fault, barring recovery under Indiana's contributory-fault standard. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the burden of the proposed phone inspection outweighed its likely benefit given the motorist's privacy concerns.The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the pedestrian's discovery request lacked necessary evidentiary support and was overly broad. The court emphasized that privacy concerns are not a per se bar to discovery but must be balanced against the need for information. The court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel, as the pedestrian failed to show that the benefit of inspecting the motorist's phone outweighed her privacy interests. View "Jennings v. Smiley" on Justia Law

Automotive Finance Corporation (AFC) extended a loan to Monmars Automotive Group LLC, which was guaranteed by Meng Liu, her then-husband Ning Ao, and Liu’s friend Xiaoqiao Yang. After Monmars defaulted, AFC sued to recover the debt. Liu, representing herself, filed unsworn letters claiming she did not sign the loan agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for AFC. Ao later admitted in an unsworn letter to forging Liu’s and Yang’s signatures, but Liu did not file a motion to correct error or appeal properly.The Marion Superior Court set aside the judgment based on fraud under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) after Liu, now represented by counsel, presented Ao’s testimony about the forgery. AFC appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals issued conflicting opinions in related cases. In Liu’s case, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision, but in Yang’s case, it reversed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief under Trial Rule 60(B)(3). The court found that Liu could have raised the fraud issue in a timely motion to correct error or on appeal. Additionally, there was no evidence that the alleged fraud prejudiced Liu’s ability to present her case. The court emphasized the importance of finality in judgments and the need for litigants, including those representing themselves, to comply with procedural requirements.The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case for reinstatement of summary judgment in favor of AFC. View "Automotive Finance Corporation v. Liu" on Justia Law

Grandparents, J.D. and M.D., petitioned to adopt their great-grandchild, P.J.W., who has lived with them for most of his life due to his parents' struggles with incarceration, substance abuse, and violence. They successfully obtained guardianship over the child in 2020. The child's biological father, R.W., contested the adoption, arguing that he had rehabilitated and wanted to maintain his parental rights. Despite the Grandparents' stable and supportive environment, the trial court denied the adoption petition, citing their advanced ages and the father's purported rehabilitation.The Montgomery Superior Court concluded that adoption was not in the child's best interest, emphasizing the Grandparents' ages and the father's progress in rehabilitation. The court also held that it is inherently in a child's best interest to be raised by a biological parent. The Grandparents appealed this decision.The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a 2-1 opinion, deferring to the trial court's judgment under the applicable standard of review. However, Judge Crone dissented, arguing that the trial court's legal conclusion about the inherent best interest of being raised by a biological parent was improper and that the Grandparents had demonstrated their capability to provide a stable and supportive environment for the child.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court erred by not considering the Grandparents' ages in light of their ability to rear and support the child under Indiana Code subsection 31-19-11-1(a)(2). The Supreme Court also found that the trial court's conclusion that it is inherently in a child's best interest to be raised by a biological parent was an erroneous legal conclusion. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to reconsider the Grandparents' ages in light of their ability to raise the child and to conduct a new best-interest determination using the proper legal standard. View "J. D. v. R. W." on Justia Law

In late 2019, a hospital sent letters to over a thousand patients, including Linda Gierek, informing them of potential exposure to infectious diseases due to a technician's failure to fully sterilize surgical instruments. Gierek filed a class-action complaint against the hospital, asserting claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and medical malpractice. She sought class certification for similarly situated patients and their spouses. The trial court consolidated Gierek’s action with a similar class-action claim filed by Cheyanne Bennett.The Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund intervened, arguing that the claims sounded in ordinary negligence and thus the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) did not apply. The hospital argued the opposite. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital, stating the MMA applied, and denied the motion for class certification, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction while a proposed complaint was pending before a medical-review panel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the MMA’s applicability but reversed the trial court’s decision on class certification jurisdiction.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the MMA covers all claims for medical malpractice, not limited to bodily injury or death. The court also held that class certification is a proper preliminary determination under the MMA. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for the trial court to consider the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. View "Gierek v. Anonymous 1" on Justia Law

A physician sexually assaulted a twelve-year-old boy during a medical examination that required touching the child's genitals. The child's parents filed a medical malpractice complaint, including a negligent-credentialing claim against the hospital employing the physician. After settling with the hospital, the family sought excess compensation from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that neither the sexual assault nor the hospital’s negligence fell within the Medical Malpractice Act (MMA). The trial court denied the motion.The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court held that the defendants could challenge the MMA’s applicability post-settlement, that a negligent-credentialing claim must be based on an underlying act of medical malpractice, and that the physician’s sexual misconduct did not constitute medical malpractice. One judge dissented, arguing that the negligent-credentialing claim need not rest on underlying medical malpractice and that the physician’s misconduct did constitute malpractice.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment. The court held that the Fund could challenge whether a claim falls within the MMA after a settlement. It also held that a negligent-credentialing claim falls within the MMA only if the credentialed physician commits an act of medical malpractice. Finally, the court concluded that claims based on sexual assault by a physician during an authorized medical examination can fall within the MMA if the misconduct stems from an inseparable part of the health care being rendered. The court found that the physician’s sexual misconduct in this case fit within this narrow category, and thus, the defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Department of Insurance v. Doe" on Justia Law

The case involves the regulatory approval of Duke Energy Indiana, LLC's proposed infrastructure improvements under the TDSIC statute, which allows utilities to recoup costs of approved improvements as they are completed. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved Duke's TDSIC plan, finding it reasonable. The key issue on appeal was the interpretation of the statute's cost-justification section: whether each improvement must be cost-justified individually or whether all improvements combined must be cost-justified.The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved Duke's plan, interpreting the statute to mean that the overall plan must be cost-justified. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, applying a deferential standard of review to the Commission's interpretation. The appellants, including the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor and other groups, argued that the statute requires each individual improvement to be cost-justified.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the scope of the Commission's authority to approve a TDSIC plan is a question of law, requiring plenary review rather than deference to the Commission's interpretation. The Court concluded that the Commission must determine whether each individual improvement within a TDSIC plan is cost-justified. However, the Court found that the Commission had made the required determination in this case, as it considered the benefits of individual projects, including those with a benefit-to-cost ratio below 1.0, and concluded that the overall plan was reasonable. Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's order approving Duke's TDSIC plan. View "Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC" on Justia Law