COA affirms judgment for church in neighbors’ adverse possession dispute
A church in a property dispute with its neighbor over a grassy area between the properties received an affirmation from the Indiana Court of Appeals on Friday.
Court opinions
Articles
Opinions Sept. 10, 2020
Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Family Institute Inc., et al. v. City of Carmel, et al.
19A-MI-2991
Miscellaneous. Affirms the grant of summary judgment to the cities of Bloomington, Carmel, Columbus and Indianapolis on the complaint brought by the Indiana Family Institute, Indiana Family Action and the American Family Association challenging the “fix” to the 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Hamilton Superior Court’s denial of a motion for judicial notice. Finds the plaintiff-appellants have not demonstrated that nondiscrimination ordinances in the defendant cities have interfered with or chilled their First Amendment rights. Also finds they are not facing the threat of an impending injury or a substantial risk of harm from the nondiscrimination ordinances. Declines to address the appellants’ arguments regarding judicial review.
AG Hill appeals ruling striking ‘abortion complications’ reporting statute
A district court ruling that struck down a Hoosier abortion law requiring the reporting of “abortion complications” has been appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill announced.
Opinions Sept. 9, 2020
Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael and Mary Poore, Individually and on Behalf of J.P. v. Indianapolis Public Schools and its Board of Education
19A-CT-1439
Civil tort. Affirms in part the Marion Superior Court’s judgment in favor of Indianapolis Public schools and its Board of Education on Michael and Mary Poores’ claims for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act when IPS refused to pay for their child’s advanced math class taken outside of the IPS system. Holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of a certain witness; IPS was not negligent because IPS did not deny J.P. the benefit of early college credits; and no valid, enforceable contract existed between IPS and the Poores requiring IPS to pay for the class. Reverses the conclusion on the DCSA and holds that IPS was not subject to the statutory requirements of the DCSA.
COA rules for IPS in advanced math class payment dispute
Two parents who argue that Indianapolis Public Schools should have paid for their teen son’s college math class while he was in high school could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals to rule in their favor in a Wednesday decision.
Justices uphold $40K damages verdict despite challenged jury instruction
A man awarded $40,000 after a crash involving an 18-wheeler will not get a second damages trial after the Indiana Supreme Court rejected his challenge to a damages-mitigation jury instruction.
Opinions Sept. 8, 2020
Indiana Supreme Court
Patrick Humphrey v. Brian Tuck, US Xpress, Inc.
20S-CT-548
Civil tort. Grants transfer and affirms the Jackson Superior Court’s entry of judgment on a jury’s $40,000 damages verdict in favor of Patrick Humphrey, and the trial court’s denial of Humphrey’s motion to correct error. Finds there was enough evidence to support giving the challenged failure-to-mitigate jury instruction.
Justices: Juvenile courts lack jurisdiction to waive those who age out
Juvenile courts’ jurisdiction to waive minors to adult court ends when the juvenile reaches the age of 18 or 21, depending on the nature of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, reinforcing bright-line statutory jurisdiction in dismissing a pair of cases alleging child molestation.
Marijuana, paraphernalia possession not double jeopardy, COA finds
Applying a new test established this year by the Indiana Supreme Court to weigh claims of substantive double jeopardy, a retired justice authored an opinion Tuesday that found convictions of possession of marijuana and paraphernalia are not duplicative punishment for the same crime.
Appeals court reinstates stabbed worshiper’s suit against Sikh temple
A worshiper’s lawsuit against the Sikh temple where he was stabbed in a 2018 confrontation was reinstated Tuesday after the Indiana Court of Appeals found the temple had notice of an escalating factional feud over leadership. The temple also “had reason to recognize the probability or likelihood of looming harm,” the panel determined.
Opinions Sept. 4, 2020
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday.
Yeison Meza Morales v. William Barr
19-1999
Civil. Amends the June 26 opinion in this immigration case reversing the removal order for Yeison Meza Morales and expanding the authority of immigration judges to administratively close cases when warranted. Adds one sentence to a footnote on page 13 of the June 26 opinion expressing no view on whether the government might be precluded from contesting the nonfinal waiver of an immigrant’s inadmissibility. Affirms the June 26 opinion in all other respects. Denies the government’s motion for rehearing in a separate order.
IU wins summary judgment in ex-student’s Title IX case
Along with granting summary judgment to Indiana University in an ex-student’s Title IX sexual misconduct lawsuit, the Southern Indiana District Court found the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction was proper and also dismissed the male student’s state law claims.
7th Circuit rejects sexual orientation claim of DOC worker fired for harassment
After working for the Indiana Department of Correction for more than 20 years, Robbie Marshall was terminated from his position after a co-worker brought sexual harassment allegations against him.
Opinions Sept. 3, 2020
Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Family and Social Services Administration; Jennifer Walthall, in Individual Capacity as Secretary of Indiana Family and Social Services, et al. v. Bonnie K. Anderson, et al.
19A-PL-3039
Civil plenary. Affirms in part and reverses in part the Bartholomew Superior Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss Bonnie Anderson’s petition for judicial review and complaint for damages brought by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration; Jennifer Walthall, the Secretary of FSSA; and the Bartholomew County Division of Family Resources. Finds the trial court did not err by denying FSSA’s motion to dismiss Anderson’s petition for judicial review, but finds it was error for the court to deny FSSA’s motion to dismiss Anderson’s complaint for damages.
Appeals court rules for FSSA in health care transfer penalty dispute
Rulings on motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration and other entities against a now-deceased woman in a transfer penalty dispute were partially reversed Thursday by the Indiana Court of Appeals.
COA rules in favor of head-butting ram’s owner in negligence case
A woman injured after being head-butted by a ram could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals on Thursday that the trial court erred in giving certain final instructions during her unsuccessful jury trial.
Opinions Sept. 2, 2020
The Estate of Sandra King by Special Administrator Marie Briggs v. Aperion Care d/b/a Aperion Care Tolleston Park and Steve Robertson, Insurance Commissioner for the Indiana Department of Insurance
19A-MI-3037
Miscellaneous. Reverses the Lake Superior Court’s denial of the estate of Sandra King’s motion to compel arbitration. Finds the trial court erred in its denial and remands with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the estate’s motion to compel.
Molester’s conviction, 50-year sentence affirmed on appeal
The conviction and 50-year sentence imposed on a man who molested a 3-year-old was affirmed Wednesday by an Indiana Court of Appeals panel, which rejected his arguments that a statement he made to officers was wrongly admitted and that his sentence was inappropriate.
Indiana Court Decisions – Aug. 13-26, 2020
Read Indiana appellate court decisions from the most recent reporting period.
Gardner: Unsettled waters: Revisions to the waters of the U.S. rule
On June 22, the Trump administration’s new Navigable Waters Protection Rule went into effect and was immediately subject to multiple legal challenges throughout the country. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule is likely to have far-reaching impacts on the development and use of land across the United States.