Court opinions

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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana ex rel. Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana v. William J. Pfister, Estate of Richard A. Sopko, Travelers Insurance Companies, Western Surety Insurance Company, Westfield Companies, and Ohio Farmers Insurance Company
25A-PL-614

Civil. Appeal from the Lake Circuit Court, Judge Marissa McDermott. Reverses the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for former Munster school officials William Pfister and Richard Sopko (deceased) on the State’s complaint to recover public funds and remands for trial. Holds Indiana Code § 5-11-5-1(a) authorizes the Attorney General to seek recovery of public funds misappropriated, diverted, or unaccounted for as a result of malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance identified in a State Board of Accounts report. Further holds the officials’ employment contracts unambiguously limited annuity contributions to fixed percentages and did not permit compounding, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion. Rejects the view that the State Board of Accounts’ uniform compliance guidelines are merely advisory, concluding they impose mandatory standards on public entities and officers. Leaves intact summary judgment in favor of certain insurance and bond defendants based on unchallenged policy limitations. Appellant’s attorneys: Office of the Indiana Attorney General. Appellees’ attorneys: Jeff Carroll.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Jane Doe v. Kristan Reibel, Jane Doe v. Kristan Reibel, Beauty + Grace Carmel, LLC, and Amber Stanley
25A-CT-258

Civil. Interlocutory appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court. Judge Jonathan M. Brown. Affirms the trial court’s denial of two plaintiffs’ motions to proceed pseudonymously and its order striking their complaints. Holds that requests to proceed under pseudonyms are governed by the Indiana Access to Court Records Rules and that the plaintiffs failed to establish extraordinary circumstances under Rule 6 warranting exclusion of their names from public access. Finds Indiana Code § 35-40-5-12 does not apply because the case is civil and voyeurism is not classified as a sex crime under the statute. Concludes the plaintiffs did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that public disclosure of their identities would create a significant risk of substantial harm or that their privacy interests outweighed the constitutional presumption of open courts. Further holds that, because the plaintiffs were not entitled to proceed anonymously, the trial court did not err in granting the defendant’s Trial Rule 12(F) motions to strike the complaints. Appellant’s attorney: Ashley N. Hadler. Appellee’s attorneys: Christopher P. Jeter, Alexandra M. Dowers.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. William J. Huff, II Revocable Trust, et al.
24A-PL-2771

Civil. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court. Special Judge Erik C. Allen. Reverses the trial court’s order that set aside the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of a variance. Holds the BZA properly classified Huff’s request as a design standards variance, not a use variance, and that collateral estoppel barred relitigation of statutory arguments previously rejected in a related enforcement action. Further holds the BZA’s determination that Huff failed to establish “practical difficulties” was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. Concludes the trial court improperly reweighed evidence and substituted its judgment for that of the BZA. Reinstates the BZA’s denial of the variance. Appellant attorneys: David Schilling, Justin Roddye. Appellee attorneys: Chou-il Lee, Jeffrey Stemerick, Jeffrey Parker.

Indiana Court of Appeals
State of Indiana v. Penny C. Lane, Michael G. Lane, and Keely Garrison
25A-DC-2328

Domestic relations. Appeal from the Boone Circuit Court. Judges Lori N. Schein and Robert W. Freese. Reverses the trial court’s order finding S.L. emancipated and terminating Penny Lane’s child support obligation. Holds the record does not support emancipation under Indiana Code § 31-16-6-6 because there was no evidence that S.L. initiated action placing himself outside parental control or that he was self-supporting. Finds the trial court erred by granting emancipation and terminating support without a hearing and without competent evidence, relying on Indiana Supreme Court precedent requiring both the child’s initiative and self-support for emancipation. Remands with child support obligation reinstated. Attorneys for appellant: Attorney General Theodore E. Rokita, Deputy Attorney General Alexandria Sons. Attorney for appellee Penny Lane: Tara L. Cragen.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Taylor D. Hunt v. State of Indiana
25A-CR-1260

Criminal. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court. Judge Steven O. Godfrey. Affirms Hunt’s Level 3 felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine and his 12-year sentence. Finds sufficient evidence supported the conviction where police recovered two bags of identical tablets from Hunt’s pocket, one tablet tested positive for methamphetamine, and Hunt told officers the tablets would test positive, allowing the trial court to infer the untested tablets were the same substance. Also finds the sentence not inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B), citing the dangerous circumstances of the offense, Hunt’s criminal history, repeated probation violations, and the fact the offense was committed while on parole. Attorneys for appellant: Gregory L. Fumarolo. Attorneys for appellee: Attorney General Theodore E. Rokita, Deputy Attorney General Alexandria Sons.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Randall N. Martin v. Robert A. Goldsmith, et al.
23-2277

Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. Judge Philip Simon. Reverses the district court’s dismissal of Randall Martin’s claims against Tippecanoe County Prosecutors Patrick Harrington and Jason Biss that the prosecutors coerced him into resigning as a lieutenant from the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Office in violation of Martin’s rights under state law and his procedural due process rights under the 14^th Amendment. Finds the prosecutors had absolute and qualified immunity for their filing of Brady/Giglio disclosures in Martin’s criminal cases but also finds that they have not met their burden of showing that absolute immunity applies for their other Brady/Giglio disclosures to the Tippecanoe County Bar Association, the Town of Dayton, or the Town of Flora. Also reverses the district court’s dismissal of Martin’s claims against Sheriff Robert Goldsmith. Remands for further proceedings. Attorneys for appellant: John Kautzman, Elizabeth Bernis, Nicholas Snow. Attorneys for appellees: Douglas Masson, Benjamin Jones, Alexander Carlisle.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Westwood Veterinary Clinic, LLC v. Amber Blackburn
25A-PL-1082
Civil plenary. Affirms the Hamilton Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment to Amber Blackburn on Westwood Veterinary Clinic’s complaint and Blackburn’s counterclaim. Finds Westwood failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding sanctions, failed to demonstrate that the trial court erred by granting Blackburn’s motion for summary judgment and failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Blackburn attorney fees. Attorney for appellant: Heather McClure O’Farrell. Attorney for appellee: Benjamin Fultz.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In re: the Marriage of: Kevin Weinzapfel v. Melissa Weinzapfel
25A-DR-1102
Domestic relations with children. Reverses the portion of the Vanderburgh Superior Court’s order regarding the father’s child support obligation and remands for recalculation of Father’s parenting time credit and support obligation. Finds the trial court erred when it gave the father parenting credit of 98 overnights in its calculation of his child support obligation because no evidence existed to support that decision and the trial court did not explain its deviation as required by Indiana Child Support Guideline 6. Also on remand, asks the trial court to include a finding to explain to the father why it discontinued the reduction of the father’s child support obligation based on his assignment of the majority of the marital debt. Also finds the trial court did not err when it determined the son did not repudiate his relationship with the father and thus the father was responsible for a portion of post-secondary expenses. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it credited the CDV Benefit to the son’s portion of college expenses. Attorney for appellant: Katherine Worman. Attorney for appellee: Jeff Shoulders.

Indiana Court of Appeals
The Trustees of Indiana University v. Chris Bradberry, et al.
25A-CT-284
Civil tort. Reverses the Monroe Circuit Court’s denial of Indiana University’s motion for summary judgment after Chris Bradberry and his parents sued the university for negligence. Finds the football program’s strength and conditioning coaches instructed Bradberry to perform an exercise that was within the range of ordinary behavior involved in football S&C. Also finds the Bradberrys failed to designate any evidence creating a genuine issue of fact that the S&C coaches intentionally or recklessly caused Bradberry’s injuries. Remands with instructions for the trial court to grant IU’s motion for summary judgment. Attorneys for appellants: Jonathan Mattingly, Hamish Cohen, Jeffrey Furminger, Jennifer Adams. Attorney for appellees: Christopher Stevenson.

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals
Julius Omar Robinson v. Brian Lammer, Warden, USP Terre Haute
24-3040
Prisoner. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. Judge James Hanlon.  Affirms Julius Robinson’s convictions of murders committed in the course of drug offenses. Finds that Robinson had every opportunity to argue before trial, at trial, after trial, on direct appeal, and on collateral review under §2255 that the indictment was deficient. Also finds the Suspension Clause does not entitle him to any further chances. Attorney for appellant: Jonathan Aminoff. Attorneys for appellee: Bob Wood, Jonathan Bradshaw, Colin Clark.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Christopher T. Tandy v. State of Indiana
25A-CR-97
Criminal. Affirms Christopher Tandy’s convictions for of murder and auto theft and the Clark Circuit Court’s denial of Tandy’s motion for relief from judgment alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finds Tandy waived his prosecutorial misconduct claim. Also finds that the deputy prosecutor’s comment neither amounted to misconduct nor placed Tandy in grave peril, and thus, the trial court did not err in denying Tandy’s motion for relief from judgment.  Judge Elizabeth Tavitas dissents with separate opinion. Attorney for appellant: Matthew McGovern. Attorneys for appellee: Todd Rokita, Rebekah Bennett, Courtney Staton, Certified Legal Intern Gabriela Alvarez.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Carlos Martin Francisco v. State of Indiana
25A-PC-1688
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the Cass Superior Court’s denial of Carlos Francisco’s petition for post-conviction relief. Finds the post-conviction court did not err when it concluded that Francisco received effective assistance or when it concluded that his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Also finds the court therefore did not err when it denied his petition for post-conviction relief Attorney for appellant: David Faherty. Attorneys for appellee: Todd Rokita, Ellen Meilaender.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Anthony W. Thompson v. State of Indiana
25A-CR-80

Criminal. Affirms the Madison Circuit Court’s denial of Anthony Thompson’s motion to suppress and his convictions for Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and three counts of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Finds that the search warrant was supported by probable cause, and, therefore, the admission of the evidence at trial did not violate Thompson’s Fourth Amendment or Article 1, Section 11 rights. Attorney for appellant: Paul Podlejski. Attorneys for appellee: Todd Rokita, Ian McLean, John Oosterhoff.