Search Results

Indiana Court of Appeals
James Irwin Richter v. Neha Bhatnagar Richter
No. 25A-DC-1593

Civil. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court, Special Judge Stephenie K. Gookins. Affirms the trial court’s order awarding Mother sole legal custody of the parties’ child, modifying Father’s child support obligation and authorizing the issuance of a passport for the child. Holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying legal custody from joint to sole where the record showed ongoing conflict, unilateral decision-making by Father and an inability to effectively co-parent, constituting a substantial and continuing change in circumstances rendering joint legal custody no longer in the child’s best interests. Further holds the trial court did not err in calculating Father’s weekly gross income for child support purposes based on his tax returns reflecting total annual income. Concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that the child obtain a passport in light of his advancement to high school and opportunities for international immersion trips, finding a substantial change in circumstances and implementing safeguards through the parenting coordinator to address Father’s concerns. Appellant’s attorneys: Bryan L. Ciyou; Anne M. Lowe. Appellee’s attorney: Dyllan M. Kemp.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: A.B. and B.B. (Minor Children), E.B. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services
No. 25A-JC-1315

Civil. Appeal from the Brown Circuit Court, Judge Mary Wertz. Affirms the adjudication of A.B. and B.B. as children in need of services. Holds that even if the trial court erred in denying Mother’s emergency motion to continue the fact-finding hearing based on one of her attorneys’ hospitalizations, Mother failed to establish prejudice warranting reversal, particularly where she was represented by two attorneys and did not show how the denial affected her ability to secure expert testimony or prepare her defense. Further holds the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the results of Stepfather’s unstipulated polygraph examination, reiterating that polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible absent a valid stipulation and rejecting Mother’s argument for a civil-case exception. Concludes that Mother did not demonstrate reversible error in either the denial of the continuance or the exclusion of the polygraph evidence. Appellant’s attorneys: Bryan L. Ciyou; Anne M. Lowe. 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 Court of Appeals
Eric D. Wilson v. State of Indiana
No. 25A-CR-1542
Criminal. Appeal from the Morgan Superior Court, Judge Brian H. Williams. Reverses Wilson’s conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Holds that Deputy Caleb Merriman lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the investigatory traffic stop where Wilson was observed making “jerky” and fidgeting body movements but committed no traffic violations and exhibited no erratic or unusual driving behavior. Concludes that, under the totality of the circumstances, the deputy’s observations amounted to a hunch rather than specific, articulable facts of criminal activity and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. Further holds the stop was unreasonable under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution after balancing the Litchfield factors, noting the moderate intrusion of field sobriety tests, transport to a hospital and a blood draw, and the absence of law enforcement need supported by traffic violations or abnormal driving. Determines the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence obtained as a result of the stop. Attorney for appellant: Glen E. Koch II. Attorney for the appellee: 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.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Jennifer Shirk v. Trustees of Indiana University, et al.
No. 22-3212

Civil. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Chief Judge James R. Sweeney II. Affirms the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Indiana University and related defendants on Shirk’s retaliation claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Holds that although the district court applied an incorrect “sole causation” standard to the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim, the proper standard is but-for causation and, under de novo review, the summary-judgment record does not support a finding that Shirk’s protected activity caused her termination. Concludes the evidence showed she was fired for sending unprofessional and insubordinate emails to high-level university officials accusing her supervisors of mismanagement and bypassing unit leadership, and that isolated remarks about her medical leave or accommodation requests were insufficient to establish pretext. Rejects her comparator and pretext arguments and determines no reasonable jury could find that her termination was retaliatory. Appellant’s attorneys: Matthew R. Gutwein; Christopher S. Stake; Annavieve C. Conklin. Appellees’ attorney: Melissa A. Macchia.

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