Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anita J. Woodson v. Ronda Randall, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Julian M. Roache
No. 25A-PL-779

Civil. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Gary L. Miller. Affirms the trial court’s judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of the Estate of Julian M. Roache and against Anita J. Woodson. Holds that the Estate’s breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims were not barred by the statute of limitations, concluding the two-year limitations period applied and did not begin to run earlier than the Decedent’s death because Woodson’s commingling of funds constituted a continuing wrong and the Decedent lacked awareness due to advanced dementia. Further holds that the trial court properly applied the common law presumption of undue influence, finding Woodson acted in a fiduciary and confidential relationship with the Decedent independent of the power of attorney and failed to rebut the presumption after benefiting from transfers of the Decedent’s funds into her personal accounts. Also holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings, including admitting evidence concerning trust assets and Social Security benefits for contextual and damages-calculation purposes, and permitting Woodson to testify regarding the Decedent’s medical diagnoses based on personal knowledge. Concludes Woodson breached her fiduciary duties by failing to account for $55,365.90 of the Decedent’s funds. Appellant’s attorney: Sandy L. Bryant. Appellee’s attorney: H. Kennard Bennett.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Derek Thomas v. Jacqueline Carmichael, et al.
No. 23-2552
Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Chief Judge James R. Sweeney II. Affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment for federal prison officials. Holds that the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim cannot proceed because recognizing it would require an impermissible expansion of Bivens, and binding precedent forecloses such claims. Further holds that the plaintiff forfeited opposition to qualified immunity on his deliberate-indifference claim by failing to address the defense in the district court, and no exceptional circumstances justify appellate review of the forfeited argument. Declines to reach whether the deliberate-indifference claim presents a new Bivens context. Dissent (Ripple, J.) would reach the merits of qualified immunity as to two nurses, conclude the deliberate-indifference claim fits within Carlson v. Green, and deny qualified immunity to those nurses while affirming as to other defendants. Appellant’s attorneys: Recruited counsel. Appellees’ attorneys: United States Department of Justice.