Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs sent a proposed medical malpractice complaint to the Indiana Department of insurance without including $7 in required statutory filing and processing fees. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their medical malpractice complaint against Defendants. After the Department discovered the fee omission, it sent Plaintiffs a letter stating that if the mandatory fee was not sent, the complaint would not be considered filed with the Department. Plaintiffs sent a check to the Department the day they received the letter. The Department received the processing fees three days after the statutory period ended. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding Plaintiffs' complaint was not timely filed. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs' proposed complaint was timely filed with the Department.View "Miller v. Dobbs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a limited liability corporation, filed a complaint against Defendants - James T. Mitchell individually, the corporation that Mitchell owned, and other corporations - alleging a claim for an environmental legal action and a violation of Indiana’s anti-dumping statute due to Defendants’ alleged environmental contamination while operating certain dry cleaning businesses. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Mitchell in his individual capacity. Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the trial court’s order entering partial summary judgment for Mitchell, contending that newly discovered inculpatory evidence established Mitchell’s individual liability. Mitchell opposed the motion, arguing that the newly discovered evidence in this case was not properly designated or timely submitted pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 56. The trial court granted Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the order granting partial summary judgment was a non-final order and therefore subject to revision at any time before entry of a final judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although a trial court may make material modifications to a non-final summary judgment order, it must do so based on the timely submitted materials properly before it when the order was initially entered. View "Mitchell v. 10th and The Bypass, LLC" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with class D felony sexual battery. Defendant, who was born in 1943, filed a motion for a competency determination. Doctors evaluating Defendant diagnosed him with dementia, concluded that he was not competent to stand trial, and predicted that he would not be able to be restored to competency. Based on the doctors’ reports and without a hearing, the trial court found that Defendant was not competent to stand trial and that he could not be restored to competency. The State then requested that the court commit Defendant to the Division of Mental Health and Addiction (DMHA) pursuant to Ind. Code 35-36-3-1(b). The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the State’s motion to commit Defendant to the DMHA, holding that section 35-36-3-1(b) requires trial courts to commit defendants found not competent to stand trial to the DMHA for competency restoration services. Remanded. View "State v. Coats" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a college freshman and a fraternity pledge, sustained injuries in an incident at the fraternity. Claiming that his injuries resulted from a fraternity hazing incident, Plaintiff sought damages from the college, the campus local fraternity, the national fraternity, and one of the fraternity members. The trial court granted summary judgment for the college and the two fraternity organizations. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the campus fraternity but affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the college and the national fraternity organization, holding (1) the college and the national fraternity were each entitled to judgment as a matter of law; but (2) as to the local fraternity, there remained genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. Remanded. View "Yost v. Wabash College" on Justia Law

After one of Mother’s five children, a toddler, was rushed to the emergency room and placed on a ventilator, Mother consented to the Department of Child Services (DCS) removing the other four children from her care to let her focus on the toddler’s treatment. DCS initiated child in need of services (CHINS) proceedings over all five of the children based on the toddler’s special medical needs and Mother’s lack of steady housing and other needs for the children. After a fact-finding hearing, the trial court released wardship to Mother’s four oldest children but did find the toddler in need of services because no one in the home had “completed the medical training needed” to meet the toddler’s special medical needs. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment that the toddler was a child in need of services, holding that because Mother had voluntarily addressed all but one of DCS’s concerns to the trial court’s satisfaction and because the evidence failed to show that Mother was likely to need the court’s coercive intervention to complete that final item, the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the toddler was a child in need of services. View "In re S.D." on Justia Law

In 2012, the Common Council of the City of Evansville enacted an ordinance (“the Amending Ordinance”) that amended an existing smoking ban (“the Smoking Ban”). The Amending Ordinance extended the Smoking Ban to bars, taverns, and eating establishments but exempted riverboat casinos from the Smoking Ban. Various bars and private clubs brought actions against the City and its Council, claiming that the Amending Ordinance was unconstitutional. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the Amending Ordinance, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) on its face, the Amending Ordinance violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution because the disparate treatment is not reasonably related to the inherent differences between divergently-related classes; and (2) the Amending Ordinance must be stricken in its entirety. View "Paul Stieler Enters., Inc. v. City of Evansville" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, felony murder, robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) Ind. Code 35-50-2-9(1) is constitutional and its constitutionality does not require that the weighing of aggravators and mitigators be done beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings regarding admission of evidence, use of an exhibit, instruction on felony murder, provision of a definition of asportation, and denial of surrebuttal; and (3) Defendant’s life sentence without the possibility of parole was appropriate. View "Inman v. State" on Justia Law

A fire destroyed a restaurant insured by Insurers. The Insurers brought suit against the City of Indianapolis and Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC - a private, for-profit company responsible for operating the City’s water utility pursuant to a contract with the City - claiming that the water supply in the hydrants near the restaurant was inadequate to fight the fire. The City claimed sovereign immunity under both the common law and the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). Veolia also claimed common law sovereign immunity from liability. The trial court concluded that the City and Veolia were not entitled to sovereign immunity regarding the adequacy of the water supply. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court’s rulings that Veolia was not entitled to common law sovereign immunity and that the City was not entitled to statutory sovereign immunity from liability for damages resulting from an inadequate water supply; and (2) reversed the trial court’s ruling that the City was not entitled to common law sovereign immunity, as a governmental unit’s failure to provide adequate fire protection is an exception to governmental tort liability under Campbell v. State. View "Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. Nat’l Trust Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The City of Boonville passed an ordinance to annex 1,165 acres of real estate located west of the city limits. Later that year, numerous landowners opposed to the annexation filed written remonstrance and complaint for declaratory relief. The City moved to dismiss, arguing that the Landowners did not satisfy the statutory requirement that at least sixty-five percent of landowners in the annexed territory sign the remonstrance. At issue in this case was whether the sixty-five percent remonstrance threshold was to be determined by separately counting the multiple parcels acquired by the State for an adjoining public roadway or collectively as one parcel. The trial court ultimately determined that the threshold was not satisfied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the land in this case, which comprised the portion of the public roadway included in the annexed territory, should be considered and counted as a single parcel in determining whether the remonstrating landowners comprised sixty-five percent of the owners of the annexed territory. View "Am. Cold Storage v. City of Boonville" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary as a class C felony and theft as a class D felony. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted transfer to address Defendant's argument that the trial court erred by admitting DNA evidence in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain DNA evidence, as the Constitution does not require a laboratory technician involved in the chain of custody of DNA evidence to testify at trial in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. View "Speers v. State" on Justia Law