Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe following opinion was posted after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline Thursday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Gayl A. Flynn, individually and as Special Representative of the Estate of Edward Louis Flynn v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis and Marion County et al.
23-3289
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge James Hanlon. Affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the five Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department police officers involved in a vehicle pursuit of a suspect in December 2020 ended with the collision that took Edward Flynn’s life. Finds that because the officers didn’t violate Edward Flynn’s constitutional rights, the court also affirms summary judgment to the City of Indianapolis on Gayl Flynn’s Monell claim for failure to train. Also finds the district court properly concluded that this was an emergency situation and applied the intent to harm standard. Attorney for appellant: Matthew Land. Attorneys for appellees: Anthony Overholt, Darren Craig, Alexander Will.
Friday opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals
Lauren Cupp v. State of Indiana
24A-CR-2333
Criminal. Affirms Lauren Cupp’s convictions in Boone Circuit Court of two counts of resisting law enforcement—one count for each officer she resisted—and two counts of felony neglect of a dependent. Also affirms the trial court’s imposition of a sentence enhancement based on Cupp’s use of a firearm during her resistance of the second officer. Finds the evidence was sufficient to support Cupp’s conviction for resisting Officer Thomas because a reasonable jury could conclude that he visibly identified himself as police, that Cupp understood she was ordered to stop, and that she fled anyways. Also finds Cupp’s double jeopardy claim fails because she committed two distinct acts of resistance. Finally, finds Officer Thomas qualifies as a “police officer” under the Enhancement Statute despite being employed by a town rather than a city. Judge Melissa May dissents in part, concurs in result in part, and concurs in full in part with a separate opinion. Attorney for appellant: Riley Parr. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Todd Rokita, Daylon Welliver.
The City of South Bend, Indiana v. Victor C. Cao, Fun F/X II, Inc., Cao Enterprise, LLC, and Cao Enterprises II, LLC
23A-PL-2819
Civil plenary. Affirms the St. Joseph Superior Court denial of summary judgment and remands for further proceedings. Finds the City of South Bend’s appeal is properly before the appellate court, but rejects the city’s arguments in support of summary judgment. Also finds genuine issues of material fact exist about the existence of a contract between the parties and about whether the city breached that contract. Finally, finds the city has not demonstrated as a matter of law that it was entitled to immunity. Judge Nancy Vaidik concurs in part and dissents in part in a separate opinion. Attorneys for appellant: Paul Harold, Erin Hanig ,Tiernan Kane. Attorneys for appellee: Michael Schultz, Courtney Darcy.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.