June 30, 2026

Indiana Court of Appeals
Barry Dircks v. Joseph Delamater and Razumich & Delamater, P.C.
No. 25A-CT-932

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Timothy W. Oakes. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding no attorney-client relationship existed between Barry Dircks and Joseph Delamater beyond an emergency intervention during a standoff. The court determined that even if such a relationship had existed, Delamater’s actions did not proximately cause Dircks’ damages, as the decision to detain Dircks’ children was already in motion before Delamater’s involvement, and ultimately Dircks’ own actions led to further complications. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judge Bailey concurring and Judge Kenworthy dissenting, believing genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the legal malpractice claim — including whether there was an assumed, ongoing attorney-client relationship beyond the standoff. Appellant appeared pro se. Appellees’ attorney: Vincent P. Antaki, Reminger Co. LPA, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Perdue Farms Inc. v. L&B Transport, LLC, et al
No. 25A-PL-1745

Appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court, Judge Gregory A. Smith. In this case, Perdue Farms, Inc. appealed the court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the employees of U.S. Security Associates, Inc., who were defendants in a negligence action stemming from equipment damage caused by an incorrect chemical delivery. The trial court found that the employees could not be held liable in tort for negligently performing contractual obligations of their employer, as established by precedent. The court noted that the alleged negligent actions taken by the employees did not constitute an independent tort and that any duty they owed arose solely from their employer’s contractual relationship with Perdue. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Perdue’s claims against the employees were legally insufficient and their request to amend the complaint was rightly denied. Judge Pyle authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Danny E. Glass and Adam S. Glass, Fine & Hatfield, Evansville, Indiana; and Gregory L. Mast and Stephen A. Kahn, Fields Howell LLP, Atlanta, Georgia. Attorneys for appellees Jennifer Freeman, Brian Hill and Carl Nelson: Edward M. O’Brien, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Louisville, Kentucky.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Freedom Property Solutions, LLC v. Lindsey McGhee, Individually, Lindsey McGhee, as Parent and Natural Guardian of K.M., Deceased, Lindsey McGhee, as Parent and Natural Guardian of J.M., a Minor, and Walter Duncan
No. 25A-CT-2810

Interlocutory appeal from the Huntington Circuit Court, Special Judge Andrew K. Antrim. Freedom Property Solutions LLC appeals the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Lindsey McGhee, individually and on behalf of her minor children, and Walter Duncan. The court concluded that the contract between the parties was a land-sale contract rather than a residential lease. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, finding that McGhee and Duncan owned interests in the property from the time the contract was executed, thus warranting their treatment under land-sale provisions rather than landlord-tenant law. Judge Mathias authored the opinion, with Judges May and Foley concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: James J. O’Connor Jr., Carta H. Robison and David C. Pricer, Barrett McNagny LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: Michael E. Simmons and Hannah K. Brady, Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Brandon E. Tate, Katherine A. Piscione and F. Holton Hovde, Waldron Tate Land LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

The following opinion was issued on June 29 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Supreme Court
PENN Entertainment, Inc. (f/k/a Penn National Gaming, Inc.) v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
No. 24S-TA-382

On petition for review from the Indiana Tax Court, Special Judge John G. Baker. The court reverses the Indiana Tax Court’s ruling requiring Penn to add back unapportioned wagering taxes. The court holds that such taxes are neither income taxes nor functionally equivalent to income taxes under Indiana law, and thus do not need to be added back in calculating state taxable income. Justice Molter authored the opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter and Goff concurring. Petitioner’s attorneys: Mark J. Richards, Jenny R. Buchheit, Matthew J. Ehinger and Joshua W. Schlake, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Respondent’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

This content was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence and has been reviewed by an editor for accuracy.