May 29, 2026

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Castle Construction Corp., Michael Vaidik, Filip Zivkovic, and Ark Supplies, Inc., Appellants-Defendants v. Sharon Leibengood-Chavez, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-PL-1373

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Judge John M. Sedia. Castle Construction Corporation and Michael Vaidik appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Sharon Leibengood-Chavez and denying Castle’s cross-motion for summary judgment on claims related to violations of the Home Improvement Contracts Act (HICA) and the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA). The court concluded that Castle was not a “real property improvement supplier” under HICA or a “supplier” under DCSA, primarily because Castle did not engage in or solicit a real property improvement contract with the homeowner. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, ordering that summary judgment be granted in favor of Castle and denying the homeowner’s request for appellate attorney fees. Judge Foley authored the opinion; Judge Weissmann concurred, and Chief Judge Tavitas dissented with a separate opinion. Tavitas writes that she concludes that Castle does qualify as a supplier under HICA and would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgement to Leibengood-Chavez and conclude that she is entitled to appellate attorney fees. However, she also concludes that Leibengood-Chavez did not meet her burden on summary judgement of demonstrating her actual damages, so she would remand for further proceedings. Attorneys for appellants: Kevin E. Steele, Burke Costanza & Carberry LLP, Valparaiso, Indiana. Attorneys for appellee: Megan L. Craig, John R. Craig, Craig & Craig LLC, Merrillville, Indiana.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
The Morel Company, LLC v. Sizewise Rentals, LLC
No. 25A-PL-937

Interlocutory Appeal from the Ripley Circuit Court, Special Judge Jeffrey Sharp. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment for Morel, ruling that the distribution agreement between Morel and Sizewise unambiguously did not permit Sizewise to opt out of an automatic extension upon its fifth anniversary. The court held that the Agreement was not a perpetual contract and could not be terminated at will; rather, it could only be terminated according to specified conditions, which were not met in this case. Judge Felix authored the opinion. Judge Altice concurs. Chief Judge Tavitas dissents with a separate opinion. Tavitas writes that although both parties argue the Agreement is unambiguous, she disagrees and finds that the Agreement could be read different ways. She would affirm the trial court’s denial of both parties’ motion for summary judgmenet and remand to determine the Agreement’s intent. Appellant’s attorneys: Steven C. Coffaro, James E. Burke, Andrew B. Barras, Bryce J. Yoder, Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, Cincinnati, Ohio. Appellee’s attorneys: Christopher W. Madel, Madel PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Briana L. Clark, Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Devante Shakur Foster v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-325

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Angela Dow Davis. Following a jury trial, Devante Foster was convicted of multiple offenses including armed robbery and kidnapping stemming from robberies of two armored vehicles. The court affirmed Foster’s convictions for armed robbery but remanded the case to the trial court to reverse his theft, kidnapping and criminal confinement convictions, citing substantive double jeopardy concerns since the acts constituted a single transaction. The court also found that while there was prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments, it did not rise to the level of fundamental error. Foster’s constitutional rights regarding cross-examination were not violated, as the trial court acted within its discretion to limit questions that could elicit perjury. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Kenworthy and DeBoer concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Sarah Medlin, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Appellate Division, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

The following opinion was issued on May 28, 2026, after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Supreme Court
Catherine Adkins v. State of Indiana
No. 26S-PC-171

Appeal from the Wayne Superior Court, Judge Gregory A. Horn, on petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Catherine Adkins appeals a declaratory judgment in her post-conviction case, claiming the trial court erred by ruling against her regarding her rights if she received relief on her underlying claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court holds that appellate jurisdiction is lacking because the trial court’s declaration is not a final judgment under Indiana law. The court emphasizes that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not make all declaratory judgments final and notes that Adkins did not exhaust other options for appealing the ruling. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Justice Slaughter authored the opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Goff, and Molter concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Amy E. Karozos, Public Defender of Indiana; James T. Acklin, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: 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.