Court opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Turi v. J.R., a Minor b/n/f Stacy Rheinlander
No. 25A-PL-2858

Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court, Judge Jillian Kratochvil. J.R., by next friend Stacy Rheinlander, filed a complaint against Michael Turi, alleging they “suffered substantial and significant injuries” via lead exposure while living at a rental property owned by Turi. Turi failed to answer the complaint and did not appear at a subsequent damages hearing, and the trial court entered a judgment against him in the amount of $500,000. Here, Turi appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in its ruling. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, concluding that Turi was adequately served and that his reasons for failing to respond did not constitute excusable neglect. On cross-appeal, J.R. sought damages pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 66(E), but the court declined to award these, finding the violations by Turi’s counsel did not rise to the level of bad faith required for such sanctions. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Felix concurring.

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

The following opinion was issued on June 9 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline.

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v. Frank Washington III
No. 25-2379

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge James T. Moody. Before Ripple, Kolar and Maldonado. Defendant Frank Washington III appeals his 70-month sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, arguing that the district court did not adequately explain its decision. The court acknowledged Washington’s documented health concerns but failed to provide an individualized assessment of factors related to his sentence duration. As the court’s explanation was insufficient for meaningful appellate review, the panel vacated Washington’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The opinion was authored per curiam.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Joshua Blair v. Amber Fields (Blair)
No. 26A-DC-27

Appeal from the Johnson Superior Court, Judge Marla K. Clark. The Court affirms the trial court’s order that granted a petition to modify custody and parenting time, awarding primary physical custody to Amber Fields. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Joshua Blair’s motion for a continuance, finding it would not serve the best interests of the children. Additionally, the Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the Guardian Ad Litem’s report and testimony, noting that there had been a substantial change in the children’s circumstances that supported the custody modification. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Felix concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Denise F. Hayden, Lacy Law Office, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Michael R. Auger, Franklin, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mykal J. A. Gerou, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-2601

Appeal from the Jefferson Superior Court, Judge Blaine S. Goode. Mykal Gerou was convicted of five counts of intimidation for threats made against various individuals, resulting in a 12-year sentence with one year suspended to probation. The court affirmed the conviction for threats against a psychotherapist, ruling sufficient evidence supported the charge, but reversed the Level 5 felony convictions for threats against Department of Child Services employees, determining they did not constitute terrorism as defined by law. The case was remanded for reclassification of those charges as Class A misdemeanors with appropriate sentencing. Judge Felix authored the opinion with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: R. Patrick Magrath, West Sixth Law LLP, Madison, 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.

The following opinion was issued on June 3 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA v. Maurice Whitesides
No. 24-2999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge James R. Sweeney II. The court affirms the district court’s application of a two-level drug-premises enhancement during sentencing, finding the evidence supported that drug distribution was among the primary uses of Whitesides’ residence. The court further held that minor factual inaccuracies cited by Whitesides were harmless and did not impact his sentencing. Judge Kirsch authored the opinion.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Nicholas S. Wemes v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2491

Appeal from the Delaware Circuit Court, Judge Thomas A. Cannon. Nicholas S. Wemes was charged with Level 4 felony causing death when operating a vehicle with a controlled substance in his blood and Level 5 felony reckless homicide after toxicology tests indicated the presence of THC, the component in marijuana that produces the effect of a “high.” Wemes filed motions to suppress evidence, arguing that Indiana laws conflict with federal law, and that proof of impairment and marijuana source was necessary for his charges; these motions were denied. The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings, clarifying that Indiana law does not require proof of impairment for driving with THC in the blood and does not differentiate between substances based on legality. Judge Scheele authored the opinion. Judges Bailey and Vaidik concur. Appellant’s attorney: J. Bart McMahon, Louisville, Kentucky. 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Christian Q. White v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-959

Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, Judge Nicholas A. Karaffa. Christian Q. White appeals his convictions for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, asserting that retrial after a mistrial violated double jeopardy protections, and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing by not identifying mitigating factors. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, stating White impliedly consented to the mistrial by failing to object and had no grounds for a double jeopardy claim. The court also found no abuse of discretion in sentencing, determining that the sentence was appropriate considering the nature of the offense and White’s criminal history. Judge Altice authored the opinion, with Judge Brown concurring and Judge DeBoer dissenting with a separate opinion. DeBoer finds that the decision to try White twice after his first jury trial ended in a mistrial did violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. She wrote that she would reverse convictions for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Appellant’s attorney: Christopher Sturgeon, Jeffersonville, 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.

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.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Michael Cline and Jacob Sofronko, Appellants-Plaintiffs v. Everest National Insurance Company, Appellee-Defendant
No. 25A-CT-1976

Appeal from the Jay Superior Court, Judge Gail M. Dues. The Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Everest National Insurance Company, determining that the maximum underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage available to Michael Cline and Jacob Sofronko is $700,000 after a setoff for the $300,000 payment from the tortfeasor’s insurance. The court found no genuine issue of material fact, agreeing with the trial court’s interpretation of the UIM policy, which states that UIM coverage limits are reduced by any amounts paid by those legally responsible for the accident. Judge Kenworthy authored the opinion, with Judges Bradford and Pyle concurring. Attorneys for appellant (Cline): Jason A. Shartzer, Shannon B. Mize, Shartzer Law Firm LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Pamela A. Paige, Plunket Cooney PC, Indianapolis, Indiana; and Stephen P. Brown, Plunket Cooney PC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

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

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Clifford Vance v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1741

Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court, Judge Bradley Jacobs. Clifford Vance appealed his convictions for drug-related offenses, arguing that the officers’ entry into and search of his motel room violated his rights under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The Court agreed, emphasizing that the officers’ degree of concern was low, the intrusion was moderate to high, and the law enforcement need was modest. The Court found that the State failed to demonstrate the reasonableness of the search, concluding that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence found, and ultimately reversed Vance’s convictions. Judge Vaidik authored the opinion, with Judge DeBoer concurring and Chief Judge Tavitas concurring in result with a separate opinion. Appellant’s attorney: Matthew J. McGovern, Fishers, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Town of Macy, Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff v. Nyona South Mud Lake Conservancy District, Appellee-Defendant
No. 25A-PL-2583

Appeal from the Fulton Superior Court, Judge Gregory L. Heller. Finds the trial court erred by sua sponte ordering the parties to arbitration regarding their wastewater treatment agreement. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s order and remanded with instructions, emphasizing that both parties had waived their right to enforce the Arbitration Provision by choosing to litigate in a trial court. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Bryce Runkle, Peru, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Joseph W. Eddingfield, Wabash, 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
Betty A. Leon, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
No. 25A-CR-2182

Appeal from the Huntington Superior Court, Judge Jennifer E. Newton. Betty A. Leon appeals her convictions for several drug-related charges, including Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine. The court reverses her conviction for Level 6 felony unlawful possession or use of a legend drug due to insufficient evidence that the pill in question was Cyclobenzaprine. However, the court affirms her 26-year sentence, determining it is not inappropriate given the nature of her offenses, including the large quantity of methamphetamine possessed and her extensive criminal history. Judge May authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Felix concurring. Appellant’s attorney: Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, 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.

Indiana Supreme Court
Carlos T. Ortiz v. State of Indiana
No. 25S-CR-303

Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit Court, Judge Michael A. Christofeno. Carlos T. Ortiz sought to bring a belated appeal after pleading guilty to murder, arguing that an improper aggravator was used during sentencing. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Ortiz’s petition for belated appeal, ruling that he was not an “eligible defendant” because he waived his right to appeal under the plea agreement and did not assert that his sentence was illegal as defined in prior case law. The dismissal was modified to be without prejudice. Justice Slaughter authored the opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Molter concurring, while Justice Goff concurred with a separate opinion. Attorneys for appellant: Amy E. Karozos, public defender; Archer “Randy” Rose Jr. and Emily L. Hopp, deputy state public defenders. Appellee’s attorneys: 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Brittney Keisler, Individually and as Natural Parent and Next Friend of Lilee Keisler, Deceased v. Indiana Department of Insurance Patient’s Compensation Fund c/o Holly W. Lambert, Commissioner
No. 25A-CT-2034

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Timothy W. Oakes. Affirms the trial court’s denial of Brittney Keisler’s motion for summary judgment. Keisler sought excess compensation from the Indiana Department of Insurance Patient’s Compensation Fund after settling a wrongful death claim for her daughter Lilee’s death due to alleged medical malpractice. Keisler argued that her emotional distress claim was separate; however, the court ruled that her emotional distress arose from Lilee’s death and thus was not distinct. The ruling followed precedent indicating that damages from malpractice are capped based on the actual victims, reaffirming that Keisler’s recovery is limited to one statutory cap as she was not the “actual victim” of the malpractice. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judge Mathias concurring and Judge May dissenting. Judge May concluded Keisler was not merely a third-party claimant grieving her daughter’s death, but also a traditional patient whose own providers breached duties owed directly to her by failing to correct their breastfeeding instructions after learning of the infant’s galactosemia diagnosis. May reasoned that Keisler’s emotional injury stemmed from unknowingly becoming “the unwitting physical instrument” of her daughter’s harm while relying on her providers’ medical advice, making her an actual victim of malpractice entitled to a separate statutory damages cap under the Medical Malpractice Act. May would have reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in Keisler’s favor on the statutory cap issue. Attorneys for appellants: Hannah K. Brady, Michael E. Simmons, Hume Smith Geddes Green & Simmons LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana; Andrea R. Simmons, Cohen & Malad LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Attorneys for appellees: 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Christine Cosme and Roy Cosme
No. 25A-CT-1439

Appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Judge Bruce D. Parent. The trial court found Erie Insurance Exchange liable for bad faith in failing to pay the Cosmes’ insurance claim following a rear-end collision. Despite a jury awarding the Cosmes over $8 million for damages related to the wreck and policy breaches, the trial court reduced the amount to approximately $3.6 million, citing the policy limitations as justification. The court upheld the denial of Erie’s motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the Cosmes had sufficiently shown issues of material fact concerning Erie’s actions, and it allowed expert testimony categorizing Erie’s conduct as “opportunistic fraud.” Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed the reduction of breach of policy damages, and remanded for further consideration of total damages. Judge Felix authored the opinion, with Judges May and Mathias concurring. Appellant’s attorneys: Dina M. Cox, Charles R. Whybrew, Lewis Wagner & Trimble, Indianapolis, Indiana; and James P. Strenski, Tyler L. Jones, Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP, Carmel, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: Angela M. Jones, Pillar Jones LLC, Crown Point, Indiana; Steven J. Sersic, Smith Sersic LLC, Munster, 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
North River Insurance Company and RiverStone Claims Management LLC v. Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc.
No. 25A-PL-375

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, Judge Randy J. Williams. Landis+Gyr Technology, Inc. sued North River Insurance Company and RiverStone Claims Management LLC for insurance coverage related to pollution remediation costs at a former manufacturing site. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of Landis, awarding over $10 million. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, ruling that the North River policies did not apply under New York law due to the pro rata allocation approach, which would yield no liability for North River, as the damages did not exceed the policy’s attachment point. The court remanded the case for the entry of summary judgment for the defendants on all claims. Judge Vaidik authored the opinion, with Judges Mathias and Pyle concurring. Appellants’ attorneys: Erik Mroz, Elizabeth S. Straw, Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP, Carmel, Indiana; Bryan H. Babb, Bradley M. Dick, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana; John D. LaBarbera, Bevin Carroll, Kennedys Law LLP, Chicago, Illinois. Appellee’s attorney: Brent W. Huber, Jenny R. Buchheit, Robert A. Jorczak, Ice Miller LLP, 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
Joel Thomas Meyer v. State of Indiana
No. 24A-CR-3025

Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, Judge Angela Warner Sims. Meyer was found guilty of Level 1 felony attempted murder and Level 3 felony criminal confinement after severely attacking his fiancée. He appealed, claiming the officers’ warrantless entry into his home was unconstitutional and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The court affirmed his convictions, ruling that the officers acted reasonably under exigent circumstances due to visible blood and a history of domestic violence. The case was remanded for a correction in the judgment regarding the merger of the aggravated battery conviction into the attempted murder conviction. Judge Scheele authored the opinion, with Judge May concurring and Chief Judge Tavitas concurring in part. Appellant’s attorneys: Jennifer Jones Auger, Law Office of Jennifer Auger, Franklin, Indiana; Andrew J. Baldwin and Kinsey H. Chaney, Baldwin, Perry & Wiley PC, Franklin, 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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.J.B. (Minor Child); A.B. (Father), Appellant-Respondent v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Appellee-Petitioner
No. 25A-JT-3154

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit Court, Judge F. Aaron Negangard. A.B. (“Father”) appeals the termination of his parental rights to C.J.B. (“Child”), arguing that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance of the fact-finding hearing while he was incarcerated. The court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion and that the denial did not violate Father’s due process rights. Father failed to demonstrate good cause for the continuance, did not follow the procedural requirements, and his lack of communication further indicated a lack of interest in the proceedings. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judges Bailey and Foley concur. Appellant’s attorney: R. Patrick Magrath, West Sixth Law LLP, Madison, 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.

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.