Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After conducting proceedings supplemental in a case on the small claims docket, the trial court ordered two self-represented judgment debtors to pay on the judgment despite their lack of non-exempt income. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the trial court, holding (1) courts cannot order debtors to pay out of exempt income, and (2) entitlement to the ordinary statutory exemptions at issue in this case was not forfeited by failure of the unrepresented litigants to plead them as an affirmative defense in the course of the purposefully informal small claims process. View "Branham v. Varble" on Justia Law

Mother's parental rights to her Child were terminated by the juvenile court after Mother's incarceration. The court of appeals affirmed. Mother appealed, alleging several due process violations on the part of the Department of Child Services (DCS). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) if any error existed in DCS's failure to locate Mother, which resulted in Mother's absence from the termination hearing, it did not substantially increase the risk of error in her termination proceeding; (2) a misrepresentation by DCS on an affidavit, in this limited instance, did not violate Mother's due process rights; (3) a delay from DCS in serving Mother with a Child in Need of Services petition upon locating Mother was inappropriate, but a reversal was not warranted in this case because the dilatory action did not result in fundamental error or deprive Mother of due process; (4) whether an incarcerated parent is permitted to attend a termination hearing is within the sound discretion of the trial court judge, and therefore, Mother's due process rights were not violated by her absence from the trial; and (5) the evidence in this case supported the trial court's findings that termination of the parent-child relationship was in Child's best interests. View "Z.G. v. Dep't of Child Servs." on Justia Law

While driving on a county road, Pamela Price encountered ice across the roadway and lost control of her vehicle, sustaining personal injury and property damage. Earlier that morning, after a different driver lost control of his vehicle at the same location, a deputy of the county sheriff department arrived at the scene and advised the county highway department of the icy condition. Price filed a complaint against, among others, the sheriff department and highway department, alleging negligence. The sheriff department and highway department filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which the trial court denied. The sheriff department sought interlocutory review. The court of appeals granted review and affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that because the sheriff department neither owned, maintained, nor controlled the county road, it did not owe a common law duty to warn the public of known hazardous conditions upon the roadway. View "Putnam County Sheriff v. Price" on Justia Law

Franklin Electric formed two new subsidiaries and started new unemployment experience accounts with a low introductory contribution rate for each one, which equaled about half the experience rating of Franklin Electric. The Department of Workforce Development later canceled the subsidiaries' experience accounts, and all experience balances and liabilities reverted to Franklin Electric. The Department also demanded back payments, interest, and a ten percent penalty. A liability administrative law judge (LALJ) affirmed the Department's determination that the three entities were a single employer but waived the penalty imposed by the Department. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and affirmed the determination of the LALJ, holding (1) the new subsidiaries were not new employers because they were not distinct and segregable from Franklin Electric; (2) Franklin Electric's experience rating should have applied to contributions made by the subsidiaries; and (3) because there was no evidence suggesting improper conduct on the part of Franklin Electric, the penalty was not appropriate. View "Franklin Elec. Co. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev." on Justia Law

Desmond Turner was found guilty of murder, felony murder, criminal confinement, robbery, and burglary. Turner appealed, alleging that the trial court erred in admitting four types of evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting firearms tool mark identification testimony; (2) testimony related to the firearms identification did not deny Turner the right of confrontation and did not violate Indiana's rule against hearsay; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Turner's alleged other crimes, wrongs or acts; (4) testimony of a witness was hearsay and the trial court erred in admitting it; but (5) the admission of the hearsay testimony did not require reversal because Turner's conviction was supported by substantial evidence of guilt apart from the challenged testimony. View "Turner v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found Richard Barnes guilty of battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed Barnes's conviction. Subsequently, Barnes petitioned for rehearing, which the Supreme Court granted. At issue in the appeal was whether the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that Barnes, a suspected spouse abuser, had the right to get physical with the police officers if he believed their attempt to enter his residence was legally unjustified. The Court continued to affirm Barnes's conviction, holding that the Castle Doctrine, which authorizes a person to use reasonable force against another person to prevent the unlawful entry of his dwelling, is not a defense to the crime of battery or other violent acts on a police officer. View "Barnes v. State" on Justia Law

After decedent Mary Avery died, sons Rod and Marshall Avery filed a petition to remove daughter Trina Avery as the personal representative of decedent's estate and to probate decedent's 2008 will naming Rod as the personal representative. Trina filed a separate action to contest the 2008 will, asserting that it was the product of undue influence, fraud, and duress, and that decedent had executed a subsequent will in 2009 that superceded and revoked the 2008 will. When Defendants Rod and Marshall failed to file an answer or other responsive pleading, the trial court entered judgment by default against them. At issue on appeal was whether Defendants were required to file an answer in the will contest action when the statutory provisions did not explicitly mandate the filing of an answer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure require the timely filing of an answer or responsive pleading and do not exempt will contest actions from the requirement, and (2) by failing to file a timely answer or other proper response in the will contest, Defendants were subject to a default judgment. View "Avery v. Avery" on Justia Law

Loan borrowers entered into a residential mortgage loan. After a dispute about whether the borrowers paid the proper amount of property taxes, the mortgage holder filed a foreclosure action, alleging that the borrowers failed to pay monthly mortgage payments and fees. The borrowers asserted numerous legal defenses and claims against the mortgage holder and loan servicer. The borrowers asked for a jury trial on these defenses and claims, but the trial court denied the request, reasoning that foreclosure was an "essentially equitable" cause of action. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the essential features of this case were not equitable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the borrowers' request for a jury trial, holding that the borrowers' claims and defenses shall be tried in equity because the core legal questions presented by the borrowers' defenses and claims were significantly intertwined with the subject matter of the foreclosure action. View "Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Jacob Gordon's mother sued Howard Community Hospital, alleging it committed medical malpractice while caring for her newborn son. In another count of the complaint, the mother sought separate damages for spoliation, alleging that the hospital had lost certain medical records associated with Gordon's care and that this loss made it impossible for Gordon to pursue a medical malpractice claim against one of his doctors, who was also a defendant. The trial court granted the Gordons partial summary judgment with respect to the third-party spoliation claim. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the opinion of the court of appeals and reversed the grant of partial summary judgment, holding that because the Court had so far declined to recognize a count alleging spoliation as representing a separate cause of action, the hospital was entitled to summary judgment on that claim. Remanded. View "Howard Reg'l Health Sys. v. Gordon" on Justia Law

Glenn Carpenter was discovered passed out in the waiting room of a dental office. Police officers aroused Carpenter and handcuffed him. When searching Carpenter the officers found a handgun with an empty magazine, marijuana, cocaine, and a crack pipe. Carpenter was convicted for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and being a habitual offender. The trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence for the felony conviction and added twenty years for the habitual finding. On appeal, Carpenter challenged the appropriateness of his sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Carpenter's conviction but reversed the sentence, holding that a forty-year sentence was inappropriate taking into account the adverse character of the offender and the unaggravated nature of the offense as a whole. Remanded with instructions to issue an amended sentence of twenty years, ten years for the felony and ten for the habitual. View "Carpenter v. State" on Justia Law