Opinions

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of G.V. and A.V., Children in Need of Services, and M.V., (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services, et al.
No. 25A-JC-1223

Juvenile. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Geoffrey A. Gaither. Affirms the trial court’s determination that G.V. is a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) and the dispositional decree continuing her removal from Mother’s care. The court found sufficient evidence that G.V. was seriously endangered, given Mother’s conduct, including physical discipline of A.V. and inconsistent explanations for G.V.’s injuries. It also concluded that coercive intervention was necessary to ensure G.V.’s safety as Mother had not shown cooperation with required interventions. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion. Judges Bradford and Weissmann concur. Appellant’s attorneys: Talisha Griffin, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis, Indiana; Suzy St. John, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Appellate Clinic, Indianapolis, Indiana; Sarah Y. Faulkner, Certified Legal Intern, Indianapolis, Indiana. 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
Gbenga Afolabi v. State of Indiana
No. 24A-CR-3081

Criminal. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Angela Dow Davis. Affirms Afolabi’s convictions of two counts of rape, one count of attempted rape, five counts of sexual misconduct and others, but remands for vacating one intimidation conviction due to substantive double jeopardy with the rape conviction involving one victim. Holds that sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction for the rape of another victim, and procedural and evidentiary decisions by the trial court did not constitute reversible error. Judge Weissmann authored the opinion. Judges Bradford and DeBoer concur. Appellant’s attorney: Stacy R. Uliana, Bargersville, Indiana. 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.

The following opinion was issued on April 13 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
John Doe v. University of Southern Indiana, et al.
No. 24-2245

Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Affirms the district court’s denial of John Doe’s request to litigate under a pseudonym. The court found that Doe failed to show a substantial risk of physical harm or retaliation, noting that past threats were old and unsubstantiated by current evidence of danger. The court reiterated the strong presumption against allowing pseudonyms for adult parties and declined to expand that standard to include mental health concerns. Judge Hamilton authored the opinion. Judges Brennan and St. Eve concur.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Marco Antono Perez, II v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2377

Criminal. Appeal from the Vermillion Circuit Court, Judge Chris A. Wrede. Reverses and remands. Holds the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Perez to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence based on two technical probation violations — failing to attend scheduled appointments — given his otherwise successful compliance, lack of new offenses and mitigating circumstances; the court concludes the sanction was disproportionate and that lesser sanctions should be considered. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judges Weissmann and Foley concur. Appellant’s attorney: Aaron J. Spolarich, Bennett Boehning & Clary LLP, Lafayette, Indiana. 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Civil Commitment of L.F. v. Sandra Eskenazi Mental Health Center
26A-MH-658

Mental health. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge David J. Certo. Affirms temporary commitment of L.F. for up to 90 days, finding sufficient evidence to support both the commitment and a treatment plan requiring medication over her objection. Police took L.F., who has schizophrenia, to Eskenazi after finding her standing in traffic. While hospitalized, she exhibited delusions, assaulted another patient and resisted medication. On appeal, L.F. argued the commitment was inappropriate because it allowed forced medication without sufficient evidence under In re Mental Commitment of M.P. The Court of Appeals held the record showed that an individualized assessment found that the medication (Abilify) would substantially benefit her condition, that the benefits outweighed risks and her concerns, and that alternative treatments were considered and rejected. The court found clear and convincing evidence supported overriding her refusal of medication and the commitment order. Judge Weissmann authored the opinion. Judges Brown and Foley concurred. Appellant’s attorney: Sarah Medlin, Marion County Public Defender Agency, Indianapolis. Appellee’s attorneys: Bryan H. Babb and Seema R. Shah, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP.

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

Indiana Supreme Court 
Keith D. Harper v. S&H Leasing, LLC; K&K Real Estate Holdings, LLC; Thomas Hagen; Brian Brisco; and Jeremy Noetzel
26S-PL-111

Civil. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court, Judge Stephen R. Bowers. Affirms the trial court’s judgment awarding treble damages under the Crime Victim’s Relief Act, ruling that money does not need to be considered “special chattel” for a civil claim of criminal conversion. The Supreme Court said the definition of a crime for the purposes of a Crime Victim’s Relief Act award is limited to its statutory elements. And it concluded that Harper knowingly exerted unauthorized control over the disputed funds he transferred to his personal accounts for his benefit. Justice Slaughter authored the opinion. Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Goff and Molter concur. Appellant’s attorney: Adam J. Sedia, Johnson & Bell P.C., Crown Point, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: James M. Lewis, Elizabeth A. Klesmith, THK Law LLP, South Bend, Indiana.

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

Indiana Supreme Court
Regina Geels v. Lindsay Flottemesch, Mackenzi Hatfield, and Stephanie Malinowski as Guardian for Marley Malinowski
No. 25S-PL-225

Civil. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court, Judge David J. Avery. Affirms the trial court’s imposition of a constructive trust over life-insurance proceeds in favor of the decedent’s daughters. Holds the defendant waived her Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)-preemption defense by failing to raise it at the trial-court level and could not rely on a co-defendant’s assertion of the defense or the parties’ stipulation that ERISA governed the policies; the court further concludes the trial court did not clearly err in finding a fiduciary relationship and breach of fiduciary duty, supporting imposition of a constructive trust under a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Justice Goff authored the opinion. Chief Justice Rush and Justice Massa and Justice Molter concur. Justice Slaughter dissents, stating he would deny transfer and allow the Court of Appeals’ decision to stand. Appellant’s attorney: Robert J. Palmer, May Oberfell Lorber, LLP, Mishawaka, Indiana. Appellees’ attorneys: Nathan S.J. Williams, Shannon K. Connors, Shambaugh Kast Beck & Williams, LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Justin Gordon and Kierston Cates v. Terex Corp., Terex USA LLC, Terex South Dakota Inc., Genie Industries Inc., and General Rental & Sales LLC
25A-CT-2275

Civil. Appeal from the Pike Circuit Court, Judge Evan C. Biesterveld. Affirms the trial court’s dismissal of appellants’ suit with prejudice, holding that their failure to timely submit required summonses meant the lawsuit was not properly commenced under Indiana Trial Rule 3. The court determined that appellants’ alleged right to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice was not applicable since they failed to meet the necessary requirements for adjudication. Judge Bradford authored the opinion. Judges Pyle and Kenworthy concur. Appellants’ attorneys: Jason E. Pepe, Patrick Daniel Law, Houston, Texas; Bradley P. Colborn, Colborn Law, Granger, Indiana. Appellee General Rental’s attorney: Robert R. Foos, Jr., Lewis Wagner & Trimble, Indianapolis. Appellees Terex’s attorneys: Kevin C. Schiferl, Maggie L. Smith, Jordan M. Slusher, FBT Gibbons, Indianapolis.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals 
V.K. and T.K. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services, and A.R. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
25A-JC-2395

Juvenile. Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court, Judge Lucy Goffinet. Affirms the trial court’s dispositional order requiring mother to submit to random drug screens and abstain from alcohol. Holds that the mother waived her challenge to these requirements by failing to object to the recommendations in the predispositional report during the dispositional hearing. Additionally, the court finds sufficient evidence supports the imposition of these requirements based on the parents’ history of domestic violence and substance abuse. Judge Kenworthy authored the opinion. Judges Bradford and Pyle concur.  Appellant’s attorney: Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Wieneke Law Office LLC, Brooklyn, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Indiana Attorney General’s Office.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael Watters v. Brandi Cole
No. 25A-CT-1703

Civil. Appeal from the Franklin Circuit Court, Judge Alex J. Dudley. Affirms the trial court’s judgment in favor of Cole. Holds the trial court did not clearly err in finding Watters made fraudulent misrepresentations, including falsely claiming extensive experience in the pool industry and failing to disclose material facts about subcontracting, which Cole relied upon in entering the contract; the court further concludes the trial court properly pierced the corporate veil because Allure Pools was undercapitalized, used to promote fraud or injustice and had no assets, making it equitable to hold Watters personally liable. Judge May authored the opinion. Judges Mathias and Felix concur. Appellant’s attorneys: Taylor Ferguson, Andrew Dutkanych III, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Joseph M. Sprafka III, Reardon & Chasar, LPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.

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 March 31 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Tax Court
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
No. 24T-TA-00004

Tax. Appeal from the Indiana Department of State Revenue. Grants in part and denies in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Holds that under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-13, the phrase “radio or microwave transmitting or receiving equipment” includes cell phones based on its plain and ordinary meaning, and rejects the Department’s attempt to limit the exemption to central network infrastructure or equipment under the provider’s custody and control; the court further concludes New Cingular qualifies as the “person acquiring the property” for purposes of the exemption because the relevant acquisition is its purchase of the phones from suppliers, making its use of the phones exempt from use tax, but denies summary judgment on the refund amount due to unresolved factual issues. Judge McAdam authored the opinion. Petitioner’s attorney: Benjamin Blair, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana. Respondent’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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Travis S. Chandler v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2553

Criminal. Appeal from the Brown Circuit Court, Judge Mary Wertz. Affirms the denial of Chandler’s petition to file a belated appeal and remands with instructions to permit a belated notice of appeal. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Post-Conviction Rule 2 because belated appeals are not available for probation revocation orders under controlling Indiana Supreme Court precedent; however, concludes extraordinarily compelling reasons justify resurrecting Chandler’s forfeited appeal where he timely communicated his desire to appeal, the failure resulted from counsel not hearing him, and he acted diligently once the issue was discovered. Judge Felix authored the opinion. Judges May and Mathias concur. Appellant’s attorney: Kurt A. Young, Nashville, Indiana. 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Nicole Olbera, et al. v. Tiara Sykes
No. 25A-JP-2005

Juvenile. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Magistrate Daun A. Weliever. Reverses and remands with instructions. Holds the trial court erred in dismissing Demaj Baker’s paternity petition and in determining Sykes was the child’s legal parent because, although the marital presumption applied to Sykes as a same-sex spouse, that presumption is rebuttable and Baker presented clear and convincing evidence rebutting it by establishing his biological parentage and the absence of any enforceable sperm donor agreement relinquishing his parental rights; the court further concludes the trial court improperly treated the presumption as a rule of parentage rather than a rebuttable presumption. Judge DeBoer authored the opinion. Judges Brown and Altice concur. Appellants’ attorneys: Thomas Roberts, Roberts Law, Noblesville, Indiana; Georgia Dunkerley, Harshman Ponist Smith & Rayl, Indianapolis, Indiana. Appellee pro se: Tiara Sykes.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Munster Medical Research Foundation, Inc. v. Melodyann Clark, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Terry F. Clark Jr., Deceased
No. 25A-CT-1827

Civil. Interlocutory appeal from the Lake Superior Court, Judge Calvin D. Hawkins. Affirms in part, reverses in part and remands. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the hospital to answer the Estate’s requests for admissions because the requests were not ambiguous, were properly used to narrow issues for trial and were proportional to the needs of the case; also concludes the hospital’s objections — including claims of improper purpose and burden — were not substantially justified. However, concludes the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees and expenses without first providing an opportunity for a hearing as required by Trial Rule 37, and that the error was not harmless because the hospital was denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the amount and reasonableness of the fees. Judge Felix authored the opinion. Judges Brown and Scheele concur. Appellant’s attorney: Adam J. Sedia, Johnson & Bell, P.C., Crown Point, Indiana. Appellee’s attorney: Daniel B. Vinovich, Hilbrich Cunningham Dobosz Vinovich & Sandoval, LLP, Highland, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Robert Bruce Cole v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1996

Criminal. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, Judge Steven P. Meyer. Affirms Cole’s conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting and habitual offender enhancement. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the victim’s forensic interview under the Protected Person Statute after finding the victim was unavailable due to serious emotional distress that would prevent him from reasonably communicating if required to testify in Cole’s presence; the court also concludes Cole waived his specific challenge to the unavailability finding by failing to raise it at trial. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judges Weissmann and Foley concur. Appellant’s attorney: Bruce W. Graham, Graham Law Firm P.C., Lafayette, Indiana. 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael C. Davis v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1132

Criminal. Appeal from the Floyd Superior Court, Judge Jason M. Mount. Affirms the trial court’s revocation of Davis’s probation and order that he serve 2,502 days of his previously suspended sentence. Holds the trial court did not err in concluding Davis waived his right to counsel by his conduct, where he repeatedly engaged in dilatory, obstructive behavior, caused multiple attorneys to withdraw, refused to cooperate with evaluations and was repeatedly warned of the consequences of his actions; also concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation, as the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Davis violated conditions prohibiting contact with minors and presence at a park, and the sanction was supported by the nature of his underlying offenses. Judge Mathias authored the opinion. Judges May and Felix concur. Appellant’s attorney: R. Patrick Magrath, West Sixth Law, Madison, Indiana. 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.

The following opinion was issued on March 19 after The Indiana Lawyer’s deadline. 

Indiana Supreme Court
In the Matter of the Honorable J. Steven Cox
No. 25S-JD-80

Judicial discipline action. Publicly reprimands Cox and permanently bans him from judicial service. Holds Cox committed egregious judicial misconduct by engaging in and relying on ex parte communications with a criminal defendant and independently investigating facts outside the record, violating multiple Rules of Judicial Conduct, and concludes the misconduct — combined with prior discipline — warrants the most severe available sanction despite Cox no longer holding office; declines to resolve whether Cox’s blanket policy rejecting plea agreements independently violated the Code. Per curiam opinion. Chief Justice Loretta H. Rush concurs. Justice Derek R. Molter concurs with separate opinion in which Justice Mark S. Massa and Justice Geoffrey G. Slaughter join. Molter concurred in the sanction and in finding misconduct based on ex parte communications but declined to join the conclusion that Cox’s categorical rejection of certain plea agreements violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. He reasoned the issue was unsettled, the Commission may not have met its burden of proof, and categorical plea policies are not uncommon, raising concerns about disciplining judges without clearer guidance. Molter concluded the court should leave that question for resolution through direct appellate review or other procedural avenues rather than judicial discipline. Justice Christopher M. Goff did not participate. Respondent’s attorneys: Garrett R. Bascom, Jefferson C.M. Kisor, Bascom & Kisor, LLC, Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Attorneys for Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications: Adrienne L. Meiring, Stephanie K. Bibbs, Victoria H. Thomas, Mark R. Conner, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
Keenah Taylor v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-2032

Criminal. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge Angela Dow Davis. Affirms Taylor’s convictions for Level 3 felony rape, Level 5 felony robbery and Level 5 felony criminal confinement, reverses the denial of pretrial good time credit and remands with instructions to award that credit. Holds the trial court properly admitted the victim’s deposition and statements to law enforcement under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine because Taylor’s repeated jail calls instructing the victim not to appear caused her unavailability, and concludes Taylor forfeited his confrontation rights under both the Sixth Amendment and Indiana Constitution; also concludes sufficient evidence supports the rape conviction because the victim was compelled by force or threat of force, but determines the trial court erred by denying pretrial good time credit without the statutorily required hearing and the State waived the issue by failing to request one. Chief Judge Tavitas authored the opinion. Judges Weissmann and Foley concur. Appellant’s attorney: Jan B. Berg, Indianapolis, Indiana. 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Demarcus Solvontez Davis v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-622

Criminal. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court, Judge Angela Warner Sims. Affirms Davis’s convictions for murder and Level 3 felony robbery and his 96-year sentence. Holds Davis preserved appellate review of the trial court’s joinder decision by objecting to the State’s motion, but failed to demonstrate either an abuse of discretion or resulting prejudice, and further concludes the trial court did not err in denying his Batson challenge, no fundamental error occurred in the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, and sufficient evidence supported the convictions, including text messages planning a robbery, surveillance video and physical evidence; the court also concludes Davis’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character. Judge Mathias authored the opinion. Judges Vaidik and Pyle concur. Appellant’s attorney: Joshua Cumming, SDHMR Law Group, Noblesville, Indiana. 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.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Merchant v. Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP
No. 25A-PL-1713

Civil. Interlocutory appeal from the Marion Superior Court, Judge James A. Joven. Affirms the trial court’s dismissal of Merchant’s claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLP. Holds the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss because KSM owed no duty to Merchant, as there was no privity between them and Indiana law limits professional liability to clients or third parties known to rely on the professional’s work; the court also denies KSM’s request for appellate attorney’s fees, concluding Merchant’s appeal, while unsuccessful, was not frivolous or brought in bad faith. Judge Bradford authored the opinion. Judges Weissmann and DeBoer concur. Appellant’s attorney: Paul L. Jefferson, SLS Group, LLC, Carmel, Indiana. Appellee’s attorneys: Jayna M. Cacioppo, Vivek R. Hadley, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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