Search Results

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Drew Sanders, Pure Holdings, Inc., and Pure Development Capital, Inc. v. Chris Seger
No. 25A-PL-1345

Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, Judge Mark K. Dudley. The trial court dissolved the corporations Pure Holdings and Pure Development Capital, asserting an irreconcilable deadlock between the parties, but failed to find jurisdiction over Pure Development, which was not a named party in the dissolution proceedings. The appellate court reversed the dissolution of Pure Development, affirming the dissolutions of Pure Holdings and Pure Development Capital, citing a breakdown of trust and the inability of the parties to govern effectively as evidence of deadlock. Additionally, the court upheld the dismissal of Sanders’s counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of process. Judge Weissmann authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and DeBoer concurring. Attorneys for appellants Pure Holdings Inc. and Pure Development Capital Inc.: B. (Too) Keller, Matthew R. Macaluso, Keller Macaluso LLC, Carmel, Indiana. Attorneys for appellant Drew Sanders: Andrew W. Hull, Michael R. Limrick, Christopher D. Wagner, Megan M. Riley, Hoover Hull Turner LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys for appellee: Robert D. MacGill, Matthew T. Ciulla, Patrick J. Sanders, Elizabeth L. Merritt, MacGill PC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Taylor Routh v. Bernard Kappe, Joseph K. Bernard, State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Transportation, Delaware County, Indiana, and City of Muncie, Indiana
No. 25A-PL-2593

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court, Judge John M. Feick. Taylor Routh initiated a lawsuit against multiple parties, including the State of Indiana and the Indiana Department of Transportation, after a motor vehicle collision. The State Parties moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity which the trial court granted. Routh appealed, arguing the court erred. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that INDOT’s decision to remove a traffic signal and its subsequent planning phase for remedial measures constituted discretionary functions shielded from liability. The court agreed with the trial court’s reliance on previous case law indicating governmental decision-making for traffic safety falls under immunity protections. Judge Bradford authored the opinion, with Judges Pyle and Kenworthy concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Austin P. Sparks, Jason R. Delk, Delk McNally LLP, Muncie, Indiana. Appellees INDOT and State of Indiana’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.