Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Stevie Bradley was accused of multiple felonies, including attempted murder and domestic battery, after a violent incident with his girlfriend, A.R. Bradley demanded A.R. call another man, and when no one answered, he assaulted her. The violence continued as he drove through rural St. Joseph County, eventually threatening her with a machete. A.R. fled to a nearby home, but Bradley recaptured her, further assaulting her before she managed to escape again. The State charged Bradley with several offenses, and he requested a speedy trial.The St. Joseph Superior Court initially set Bradley's trial within the seventy-day window required by Criminal Rule 4(B). However, the court later ordered a competency evaluation for Bradley, vacating the original trial date. After Bradley was deemed competent, the court reset the trial date beyond the seventy-day period, leading Bradley to file multiple motions for discharge, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated. The trial court denied these motions, and Bradley was convicted on all charges except strangulation.The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated Bradley's convictions, ruling that the trial court erred by resetting the seventy-day period instead of merely tolling it during the competency evaluation. The court found no justification for scheduling the trial beyond the original deadline. The State petitioned for transfer, which the Indiana Supreme Court granted.The Indiana Supreme Court held that a trial court’s sua sponte order for a competency evaluation does not reset the Criminal Rule 4(B) period but merely tolls it. However, the court also held that Bradley waived his right to discharge by failing to properly notify the trial court of its scheduling error. Consequently, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Bradley v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

Joseph Corcoran was convicted of four murders by an Allen County jury, and the judge sentenced him to death as recommended by the jury. Corcoran has been involved in extensive litigation over the past 25 years, including multiple decisions from the Indiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, regarding the constitutionality of his execution. Corcoran has expressed his desire to accept his conviction and sentence, stating that he does not wish to pursue further legal challenges.The Allen Superior Court initially sentenced Corcoran to death, and the Indiana Supreme Court remanded for resentencing due to the consideration of non-statutory aggravating factors. Upon resentencing, the death sentence was reimposed and affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Corcoran chose not to pursue post-conviction relief, leading to competency proceedings initiated by the State Public Defender, who argued that Corcoran was incompetent to waive post-conviction remedies. The trial court and the Indiana Supreme Court found Corcoran competent. Corcoran later filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and denied the State Public Defender's motions to file successive petitions for post-conviction relief and to stay the execution. The court held that Corcoran is competent to waive post-conviction remedies and that the State Public Defender lacks standing to file the petitions without Corcoran's authorization. Additionally, the court found no reasonable possibility that Corcoran is entitled to relief, as the claims presented were procedurally defaulted and previously addressed. The court concluded that Corcoran has a rational understanding of his execution and the reasons for it, and thus, denied the motions for a stay of execution. View "Corcoran v. State" on Justia Law