Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Paul Shafer, et al. v. Jason W. Grube, et al.
No. 25A-PL-3051
Appeal from the La Porte Circuit Court, Judge Julianne K. Havens. The trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for immediate possession and eviction while granting partial summary judgment in favor of the defendant, ordering specific performance. The court found that Rochester had not breached the purchase agreement and had substantially performed its obligations, leading to the order for Shafer to proceed with the transfer of real estate. Judge Bradford authored the opinion. Chief Judge Tavitas and Judge Felix concurred. Appellants’ attorneys: David A. Buls, Scott J. Fandre, David M. Johnson, Krieg DeVault LLP, Crown Point. Appellees’ attorneys: Christopher J. Braun, Jonathan P. Emenhiser, Joanne R. Sommers, Mary Claire Tuohy, Plews Shadley Racher & Braun LLP, Indianapolis.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Echo Greenwood LLC v. A Dental Touch, LLC
No. 25A-PL-3143
Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court, Judge Peter Nugent. Echo Greenwood LLC appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for partial judgment on the pleadings and the grant of A Dental Touch LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the lease agreement. The court affirmed in part, ruling that Dental Touch was not in breach when exercising its lease renewal option, and that the rent for the renewal period remains the same. However, the court reversed the trial court’s order for Dental Touch to continue paying a specific amount for common area maintenance without it being litigated, and it upheld the denial of Dental Touch’s reimbursement claim for overpayments. Senior Judge Crone authored the opinion, with Judges Altice and Foley concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Matthew A. Adolay, Daniel R. Kelley, Nicholas R. Burris, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Indianapolis. Appellee’s attorney: Michelle C. Harter, Leske Harter LLC, Greenwood.
Indiana Court of Appeals
Jesse Rose v. Natalie Rose
No. 26A-DC-578
Appeal from the Morgan Superior Court, Judge Brian H. Williams. Reversing and remanding, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying father’s petition to modify child support, as the denial was based solely on his prior stipulation of income while unemployed. The court found that father demonstrated a prima facie showing of a substantial and continuing change in circumstances due to a lengthy period of unemployment and insufficient income to support his child. Judge Altice authored the opinion, with Judges Vaidik and Foley concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Rachelle N. Ponist, Indianapolis.
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al.
No. 24-2219
Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Before Circuit Judges Rovner, Hamilton and Scudder. Planned Parenthood challenged Indiana’s “aid-or-assist” law, which prohibits aiding a minor in obtaining an abortion without parental consent. The district court imposed a permanent injunction against the law’s enforcement concerning Planned Parenthood’s provision of information and referrals related to legal out-of-state abortion services for minors. The 7th Circuit affirmed this injunction, concluding that the law imposes a content-based restriction on protected speech and fails to meet strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. The court found that the law excessively burdens the dissemination of factual information and referrals, which are protected, particularly since the activity pertains to lawful conduct in other states. The ruling thus modifies the injunction so that it no longer applies to the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Health while upholding the protections for Planned Parenthood’s speech. Judge Hamilton authored the opinion. Judge Scudder concurred, emphasizing that the statute primarily overreaches due to its stringent notarization requirement while recognizing Indiana’s legitimate interests in parental involvement.
This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.