Articles

Opinions May 29, 2020

Indiana Supreme Court
River Ridge Development Authority v. Outfront Media, LLC, David Watkins, No Moore, Inc., the Schlosser Family Limited Partnership, the Town of Utica, and the Utica Board of Zoning Appeals
19S-PL-645
Civil plenary. Reverses the Clark Circuit Court’s award of $237,440.63 in attorney fees to Outfront Media, LLC, David Watkins, No Moore, Inc., the Schlosser Family Limited Partnership, the Town of Utica, and the Utica Board of Zoning Appeals. Holds that the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion. Neither the common-law obdurate behavior exception nor the General Recovery Rule — both of which require a “prevailing party” — allow an award of attorney fees when a party voluntarily dismisses its complaint, as River Ridge did. The record also lacks evidence to show that River Ridge litigated in bad faith and that its conduct was calculatedly oppressive, obdurate, or obstreperous.

Read More

Justices strip award of attorney fees in Utica billboard dispute

The Indiana Supreme Court on Friday threw out an award of more than $237,000 in attorney fees in a lawsuit over seven billboards outside Utica, Indiana. Justices found the Clark Circuit Court lacked a basis for awarding fees to the parties who sued a regional development entity that sought to restrict billboards along State Road 265 just north of Louisville.

Read More

Opinions May 28, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Universal Auto, LLC, d/b/a James Myers v. Cory Murray
19A-PL-1225
Civil plenary. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s entry of judgment in Cory Murray’s favor on his contract claim for damages and Universal Auto LLC’s counterclaim for damages and attorney’s fees. Finds Murray had not defaulted on the sales contract when Universal repossessed his vehicle. Also finds that Universal failed to carry its burden of demonstrating prima facie error concerning its counterclaim and Murray’s contract claim.

Read More

Opinions May 27, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
In Re the Supervised Estate of Dorothy M. Hall (Decedent), Doloris Tilly v. Jeff Hall and Doris Andres
19A-ES-1450
Estate. Affirms the Floyd Circuit Court’s April 26, 2019 interlocutory order in the supervised estate of Dorothy M. Hall. Finds reversal is not warranted on Doloris Tilly’s argument that her stepbrother Jeff Hall’s affidavits were improperly considered by the trial court. Also finds no abuse of its discretion in denying her request to strike Hall’s responses to her request for admissions. Lastly, finds that Ind. Code § 29-1-14-1 does not require reversal and that Hall was not required to file a separate request to set aside the March 2010 deeds or join stepsister Doris Andres’s petition.

Read More

Appeals court slams due process violations in TPR cases: ‘This must stop’

Indiana trial courts and the Department of Child Services continue to deprive parents of their due process rights after years of warnings, the Indiana Court of Appeals said Wednesday, reversing the termination of a mother’s parental rights when the termination hearing went on without her or her lawyer present. In doing so, appellate judges strongly restated that courts and DCS have a duty to ensure parents’ rights aren’t violated.

Read More

Opinions May 26, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Community Health Network, Inc. v. Heather McKenzie and Daniel McKenzie, individually and as parents and natural guardians of J.M. and O.M., John McKenzie, Deborah West, Michael West, and Katrina Gray
19A-CT-873
Civil tort. Affirms and reverses in part the denial of Community Health Network Inc.’s Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Heather McKenzie, Daniel McKenzie, John McKenzie, Deborah West, Michael West, J.M. and O.M., and Community’s motion for summary judgment. Finds the appellees’ claims do not fall within the purview of the Medical Malpractice Act, and the Marion Superior Court properly denied Community’s motion to dismiss. Also finds genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in Community’s favor on the claims involving respondeat superior, negligent training, supervision and retention, and negligence. Finally, finds Community is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, in part, on the respondeat superior claim. Remands with instructions to grant summary judgment in favor of Community on the appellees’ invasion of privacy/intrusion claim.

Read More