The Court of Appeals of Indiana relied on controlling precedent to affirm a lower court’s ruling that three prospective Cass County jurors could remain fair and impartial even after they heard prejudicial statements made against a defendant.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
A.B. and D.B., individually and as parents of C.B., a disabled minor v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation
22-1277
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Civil. Reverses the district court’s denial of attorney fees to A.B. and D.B. Finds A.B. and D.B. were the prevailing party in an administrative proceeding. Also finds attorney fees could be awarded. Remands for further consideration.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
Karen R. Hirlston v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
22-2067
Civil. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Affirms the district court’s judgment and the jury’s finding. Finds the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing both plaintiff and defendant to introduce a few photographs of the workplace that had not been disclosed in discovery and sees no risk of unfair prejudice. Also finds Karen Hirlston forfeited her appellate challenge to the jury instruction by failing to make a timely objection.
A nonprofit that purports to help police departments failed to convince the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that newspaper articles questioning its legitimacy were defamatory, with the appellate court affirming a lower court’s decision.
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Santana J. Gray v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A-PC-1992
Post-conviction relief. Affirms the Marion Superior Court’s denial of Santana Gray’s post-conviction relief petition. Finds no error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana
On the Level Fence & Deck Inc. v. Indiana Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Indiana
22A-CT-3073
Civil tort. Reverses the denial of the motion for default judgment and remands the matter to the Lake Superior Court for further proceedings. Finds that On the Level Fence & Deck’s failure to answer the complaint was the result of excusable neglect. Judge Peter Foley dissents with a separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Tarah L. Weaver v. Samuel B. Weaver (mem. dec.)
22A-DC-2111
Domestic relations with children. Affirms the Kosciusko Superior Court’s order for Tarah Weaver to pay Samuel Weaver $2,250 in attorney fees, finding that Tarah had filed several untimely and defective motions. Finds no abuse of discretion by the trial court.
The Biden administration weakened regulations protecting millions of acres of wetlands Tuesday, saying it had no choice after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s jurisdiction over them.
Since the SFFA opinion was handed down, legal scholars and practitioners across the country have been grappling with the full extent of the holding.
Election-related lawsuits have challenged Indiana laws as they relate to ballot access for both candidates and voters. Decisions in those cases handed down in recent months have been mostly favorable to existing Indiana law.
After running into another roadblock on its quest to overturn a state law that limits its operations in Indiana, The Bail Project isn’t committing one way or the other on whether it will continue working in the state.
Read Indiana appellate court decisions from the most recent reporting period.
A commercial court acted within its discretion in appointing a master to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement reached in a shareholder lawsuit, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Tuesday.
Tuesday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
James K. McConnell v. Martha A. Doan; Marilyn S. Hall; David Fee; Jerome Henry, Jr.; Thomas B. Walsh; Tim Miller; and Nicolas Ciocca
23A-CT-145
Civil tort. Affirms a settlement agreement and appointment of a commercial court master. Finds the Allen Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a commercial court master pursuant to Commercial Court Rule 5 or Trial Rule 70. Also finds the settlement agreement does not contain an unenforceable “agreement to agree.”
Monday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
James Andry v. Leo Thorbecke
22A-CT-2942
Civil tort. Reverses the trial court’s order granting Leo Thorbecke leave to file his untimely response and remands for further proceedings on the motion for summary judgment in which the trial court may not consider the late filings. Finds the trial court lacked authority to deviate from the bright-line rule requiring the timely filing of materials opposing summary judgment. Also finds Trial Rule 72(E) offers no relief to Thorbecke under the circumstances presented.
Friday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jane C. Irby v. Michael A. Spear (mem. dec.)
22A-PL-2968
Civil plenary. Affirms the Clark Superior Court’s judgment that Jane Irby did not own certain property by adverse possession. Finds Irby did not meet her burden of proving the elements of adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence. Also finds the trial court was able to consider the recorded instruments, photographs and tax statements, as well as the parties’ thorough testimony, and the trial judge visited the site.
Thursday opinions
Court of Appeals of Indiana
K.H. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (mem. dec.)
23A-EX-413
Appeal in certain administrative proceedings. Affirms the denial of K.H.’s unemployment benefits Finds K.H. does not qualify for unemployment benefits.
A bank’s request to dismiss a long-dormant civil lawsuit for failure to prosecute was untimely, but a trial court was correct in entering summary judgment for the bank based on the doctrine of laches, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Wednesday.
A man who was told he was free to leave the scene of a traffic stop before being searched convinced the Court of Appeals that his constitutional rights were violated, leading the court to order that his motion to suppress be granted.
A man’s above-guidelines sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm was not inappropriate given his criminal history, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.