Search Results

Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Land Trust #3082 and Omar and Haitham Abuzir, as Trustees v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission et al.
No. 25S-PL-141

Civil. Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Judge Bruce D. Parent, on petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Affirms the trial court’s grant of the defendants’ Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss the landowners’ abuse-of-process complaint arising from a pending condemnation action. Holds that the mayor and individual members of the Hammond Redevelopment Commission are immune under Indiana Code section 34-13-3-5 because their alleged conduct — voting for and approving the condemnation resolution and related actions — was of the same general nature as that authorized by statute and undertaken in furtherance of their official duties. Further holds that all defendants — including the commission and the city — are immune under Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3(a)(6) because the landowners’ claimed loss directly resulted from the initiation of a judicial proceeding, namely the condemnation action, and subsection (6) immunity applies to both the initiation and prosecution of such proceedings. Declines to address whether a parallel abuse-of-process claim may proceed alongside a condemnation action in light of the dispositive immunity ruling. Appellants’ attorneys: Greg A. Bouwer; Jeffrey R. Carroll; Karol A. Schwartz. Appellees’ attorneys: Robert J. Feldt; Erika N. Helding; David C. Jensen; Kevin C. Smith; David W. Westland.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of A.M., G.G., and A.G. (Children in Need of Services), and A.C. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
No. 25A-JC-2407

Civil. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court, Judge Gary Schutte, Magistrate Renee A. Ferguson and Referee Beverly Corn. Affirms the adjudication of A.M., G.G. and A.G. as children in need of services. Holds that although the trial court erred in adopting verbatim portions of the CHINS petitions as findings and in including findings unsupported by evidence — specifically regarding Mother’s alleged daily marijuana use and use of suboxone — those superfluous findings did not warrant reversal. Concludes sufficient evidence supported findings that A.M. witnessed and was involved in a domestic violence incident between Mother and Father, that the children had been exposed to domestic violence, and that Mother lacked stable housing, establishing serious endangerment to the children’s physical and/or mental condition. Further holds the evidence supported the need for coercive court intervention where Mother refused to participate in services, denied that services were necessary and testified she did not cooperate with a case manager because she had not been court-ordered to do so. Appellant’s attorney: Katherine N. Worman. 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carla Miller v. Indiana Gas Company, Inc.
No. 25A-CT-866

Civil. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, Magistrate William A. Dawkins. Affirms the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Indiana Gas Company on Miller’s product liability claim arising from a 2019 natural gas explosion that destroyed a neighboring home and injured Miller. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission’s Final Incident Report and accompanying affidavits, concluding the report was not hearsay because it contained the findings of its authors, who personally observed the investigation, and was properly authenticated. Further holds there was no genuine issue of material fact that the natural gas was properly odorized under 49 C.F.R. § 192.625, where undisputed odorator readings taken near the residence were well within the federal 1% detection threshold and Miller’s designated evidence that occupants did not smell gas did not establish a regulatory violation or defect under the Indiana Product Liability Act. Concludes Miller failed to designate evidence that odor fade was implicated or that Indiana Gas had a duty to warn of it — particularly where the service lines had been in use for years and no regulation required such a warning — and therefore Indiana Gas was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellant’s attorneys: Ashton Rose Smith; Emily A. DeVuono. Appellee’s attorneys: Thomas J. Costakis; Libby Yin Goodknight; Hilary K. Leighty; Blake P. Holler.

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