Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Reagan Outdoor Advertising in this appeal from the determination that Reagan's billboard had lost its legal nonconforming status, holding that the trial court correctly entered judgment for Reagan.An ordinance of the city of Noblesville bans pole signs, which are signs affixed to poles or other uprights installed in the ground. Reagan, whose billboards the city classifies as pole signs, was allowed signs to remain that pre-dated the ordinance if they were kept in good repair and not relocated. When Reagan repaired damage to one of the billboard's support posts the city issued a stop-work order before Reagan could reattach the sign's display, concluding that Reagan had relocated the sign, which therefore lost its legal nonconforming status. The zoning board of appeals affirmed, but the trial court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance's use of the word "relocate" was ambiguous and, consistent with this Court's interpretative canons, must be resolved in Reagan's favor. View "Noblesville Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that the Honorable Jason A. Cichowicz, Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court, engaged in judicial misconduct and concluded that Judge Cichowicz shall be suspended from the office of Judge of the St. Joseph Probate Court without pay for forty-five days.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a "Notice of the Institution of Formal Proceedings and Statement of Charges" against Judge Cichowicz arguing that the judge engaged in judicial misconduct by, among other things, continuing to serve in a fiduciary position for a non-family member after taking office and abusing his office to benefit a family member. Judge Cichowicz agreed that his conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and that an appropriate sanction was a forty-five-day suspension without pay plus an assessment of costs. The Supreme Court approved the suspension, holding that the sanction was within the range imposed for similar misconduct. View "In re Honorable Cichowicz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the trial court denying Hoosier Contractors, LLC's motion for summary judgment, denying Sean Gardner's motion for partial summary judgment, and denying Hoosier's motion to decertify a class of Hoosier's similarly situated customers, holding that Gardner, on behalf of himself and as class representative, lacked standing to bring his counterclaim against Hoosier.When Gardner asked Hoosier to inspect the roof of his home Hoosier made Gardner sign a contract for Hoosier to perform any needed work. When Gardner refused to let Hoosier repair his roof Hoosier brought this action for breach of contract. Gardner filed a counterclaim, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated customers, alleging that the contract violated the Indiana Home Improvement Contractors Act and that the violations were deceptive acts under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. The Supreme Court held (1) Gardner lacked standing to bring his counterclaim against Hoosier, and this disposition mooted the class-action issues; and (2) the court of appeals properly affirmed the denial of Gardner's motion for partial summary judgment as to Hoosier's breach of contract claim. View "Hoosier Contractors, LLC v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated a preliminary injunction granted by the trial court preliminarily enjoining the State from enforcing Senate Bill 1, which broadly prohibits abortion but makes exceptions in three circumstances, holding that Plaintiffs could not show a reasonable likelihood of success on their facial challenge.Plaintiffs, several abortion providers, brought this lawsuit seeking to invalidate Senate Bill 1 on the grounds that the law materially burdened a woman's exercise of her right to "liberty" under Ind. Const. Art. I, 1. The trial court agreed and granted the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to contest the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1; (2) Senate Bill 1 was judicially enforceable; (3) Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman's right to an abortion that the extent that it is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk, but, otherwise, the General Assembly retains legislative discretion in determining the extent to which prohibit abortions; and (4) the record in this case did not support a preliminary injunction. View "Members of the Medical Licensing Bd. v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment for Appellant's mental health providers for not preventing his crime of voluntary manslaughter, holding that Defendant was collaterally estopped from relitigating his responsibility.Appellant pleaded guilty but mentally ill to voluntary manslaughter. Thereafter, Appellant sued his mental health providers, arguing that they were legally responsible for his act. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thus vacating the court of appeals' opinion, and affirmed, holding (1) Appellant was estopped from relitigating his legal responsibility under defensive issue preclusion; and (2) Appellees carried their summary judgment burden of establishing that Appellant's damages were not compensable. View "Miller v. Patel, M.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court excluding certain testimony from the jury trial of Defendant's habitual offender status, holding that the trial court did not err by excluding the testimony.The trial court excluded Defendant's testimony to the circumstances of his "most serious crime of conviction," his intent to rehabilitate himself, and his purported innocence of one of his prior, unrelated felonies as irrelevant to the issue of whether Defendant had accumulated the requisite convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's testimony was irrelevant because it did not tend to prove or disprove his convictions, and therefore, Defendant had no constitutional right to present the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's testimony was irrelevant because it did not tend to prove or disprove his convictions; and (2) Defendant had no constitutional right to present irrelevant evidence. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of a school corporation that contractually agreed to make biannual payments to a company for access to a wind turbine, holding that the contract was void and unenforceable.Randolph Eastern School Corporation (RESC) contractually agreed to make biannual payments to Performance Services, Inc. for a wind-turbine project. As part of the contract, Performance agreed to provide RESC with financial benefits tied to the net revenue of the turbine. RESC, which never made any payments to Performance, brought this declaratory judgment action seeking to void the contract on the grounds that it constituted an illegal investment. The trial court granted RESC's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the contract constituted an unauthorized investment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract between RESC and Performance was void and unenforceable because it constituted an investment unauthorized by statute. View "Performance Services, Inc. v. Randolph Eastern School Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court suppressing incriminating statements Defendant made immediately following a polygraph examination, holding that before excluding evidence as a Trial Rule 37 discovery sanction, a trial court must find that the exclusion is the sole remedy available to avoid substantial prejudice and that the sanctioned party's culpability reflects an egregious discovery violation.Defendant was interviewed at the police department as part of an investigation as to whether he sexually abused a minor. Defendant agreed to sit for a polygraph and agreed that the results of the polygraph would be admissible if the State charged him with a crime. The State subsequently charged Defendant with child molesting. Defendant moved to suppress the polygraph results and his related statements, arguing that his statements were not voluntary or reliable. The trial court denied the motion. On the eve of trial, the deputy prosecutor disclosed that the officer who administrated the exams had unilaterally changed the exam to a "non-stipulated," inadmissible investigatory examination. The judge suppressed the incriminating statements as a discovery sanction. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order enforced Trial Rule 37 within the limits set forth in this opinion. View "State v. Lyons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding that Father committed an act of domestic or family violence against Child and that he represented a credible threat to the family's safety and thus granting Mother's petition for an ex parte petition order, holding that the trial court's evidence-based findings supported its judgment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence presented supported the trial court's finding that Father committed an act of domestic or family violence; and (2) Mother presented probative evidence to support the trial court's finding that Father posed a credible threat to Mother or Child's safety. View "S.D. v. G.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court excluding the opinion testimony from three of Defendant's family members regarding the victim's untruthful character, holding that the trial court erred in excluding the opinion testimony but that the error was harmless.Defendant was charged with several felony child molestation counts and one count of felony incest for molesting his minor daughter. Before trial, Defendant requested to call three relatives as witnesses to testify about the opinion of the victim's character for untruthfulness. The trial court excluded the testimony on the grounds that Defendant had not established a proper foundation. After trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of felony child molesting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of one witness for lack of foundation, but the error was harmless. View "Hayko v. State" on Justia Law