Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2022, a delinquency petition was filed against G.W., a 17-year-old, alleging that he had committed acts that would be considered theft and criminal trespass if committed as an adult. G.W. admitted to one allegation of theft and one allegation of criminal trespass. After G.W. went missing and was later found in Mississippi, he was returned to Indiana for his dispositional hearing. The juvenile court rejected G.W.'s request for home detention and ordered wardship of G.W. to the Department of Correction (DOC). However, the court's dispositional order did not include specific findings to support G.W.'s commitment, as required by statute.The Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's decision but acknowledged that the order failed to comply with the applicable statutory requirements. The panel remanded the case for an amended dispositional order which includes the written findings and conclusions required by the statute. After the Court of Appeals had delivered its decision, but before it had certified that decision, the juvenile court issued an amended dispositional order which included the required statutory findings.The Indiana Supreme Court held that when a juvenile court fails to enter the requisite findings of fact in its dispositional order, an appellate court should neither affirm nor reverse. Instead, the proper remedy is to remand the case under Indiana Appellate Rule 66(C)(8) while holding the appeal in abeyance. This process adheres to the applicable statutory requirements, preserves the distinct roles played by trial courts and appellate courts, and (in some cases) justifies the cost of juvenile detention. The court remanded the case to the juvenile court for entry of its amended dispositional order. View "G.W. v. State" on Justia Law

This case involved Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) appealing against the trial court's dismissal of its third-party spoliation and negligence claims against the Michaelis Corporation. The dispute originated from a fire in a home insured by Safeco, which resulted in over $500,000 worth of damage. Safeco hired Michaelis to restore the property, and during this process, the kitchen, identified as the origin of the fire, was demolished and the dehydrator believed to have caused the fire was discarded. Safeco subsequently sued Michaelis for negligence and spoliation of evidence, arguing this impeded its ability to bring a successful claim against the dehydrator manufacturer.The trial court dismissed both claims, sparking Safeco's appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court held that under the given facts, Indiana common law did not recognize the tort of third-party spoliation and therefore upheld the trial court’s ruling. The court established that a special relationship did not exist between Safeco and Michaelis that would impose a duty on Michaelis to preserve the evidence. Furthermore, the court ruled it was not reasonably foreseeable that Safeco would be harmed by the loss of the dehydrator. Public policy considerations also weighed against recognizing third-party spoliation absent a special relationship.In addition, the court ruled that Safeco's negligence claim was essentially a third-party spoliation claim and failed for the same reasons. The court also dismissed Safeco's argument that Michaelis assumed a duty of care to preserve the evidence, as this was not alleged in the amended complaint and was raised for the first time on appeal. View "Safeco Insurance Company of Indiana v. Blue Sky Innovation Group, Inc" on Justia Law

A fatal car crash led to a lawsuit against two Indiana restaurants that had served alcohol to the intoxicated driver responsible for the accident. The estate of the deceased sued the restaurants for negligence, arguing that they should have known the driver was visibly intoxicated and should not have allowed him to drive. The restaurants argued that the Indiana Dram Shop Act, which provides civil liability for establishments that serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated individuals who later cause injuries, eliminated any independent common-law liability. Therefore, they contended that the negligence claim should be dismissed.The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Dram Shop Act did not eliminate common-law liability, but rather modified it. The court ruled that claims against establishments that serve alcohol must still satisfy the requirements of the Dram Shop Act, namely that the server must have actual knowledge of the individual's visible intoxication, and that the individual's intoxication must be a proximate cause of the injury or damage. The court found that the estate's negligence claim met these requirements and therefore, the negligence claim was valid and could proceed. The court affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the restaurants' motion to dismiss the negligence claim. View "WEOC v. Adair" on Justia Law

In this case decided by the Indiana Supreme Court, plaintiff Dux North LLC, the owner of a landlocked property in rural Hamilton County, Indiana, sought an implied easement over adjacent property owned by defendants Jason and Sarah Morehouse. Dux North claimed either an implied easement by prior use or an implied easement of necessity over the Morehouse property. The court clarified that these two types of implied easements are conceptually different. For an implied easement by prior use, the claimed servitude must predate the severance creating the separate parcels. For an implied easement of necessity, the claimed necessity need to arise only at severance and not before. Thus, Dux North could seek relief under either implied easement, and the failure of one such easement does not necessarily defeat the other. Furthermore, the court held that an implied easement of necessity requires a showing that access to the property by another means is not just impractical but impossible. The court then reversed the trial court's judgment granting Dux North's motion for summary judgment on the easement-by-prior-use claim and denying the Morehouses' motion for partial summary judgment on the easement-of-necessity claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings to decide whether Dux North has an easement by prior use over the Morehouse property. View "Morehouse v. Dux North LLC" on Justia Law

In the case before the Indiana Supreme Court, the defendant, Expert Pool Builders, LLC, appealed a default judgment entered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Paul Vangundy. The default judgment was entered because Expert Pool failed to timely file a response to Vangundy's complaint. Expert Pool had opposed Vangundy's motion for a default judgment three times but a divided Court of Appeals panel concluded Expert Pool waived its challenge to the default judgment. The majority of the Court of Appeals interpreted a previous decision as requiring Expert Pool to reassert its argument in a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside the judgment before it could obtain appellate review and dismissed the appeal.The Indiana Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Court of Appeals. It held that Expert Pool did not need to file a Trial Rule 60(B) motion to preserve its right to appeal. It reasoned that once a party obtains a final ruling from the trial court, the party has preserved the issue for appellate review. The Court stated that Expert Pool had already presented its argument opposing default judgment before judgment was entered, so there was no need to file a post-judgment motion.On the merits of the case, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of default judgment against Expert Pool. The Court held that Expert Pool's challenge to the default judgment required the Court to reweigh the evidence and rebalance the equities, something that its standard of review does not permit. The trial court concluded that the parties never agreed to extend Expert Pool’s deadline for a responsive pleading and that Expert Pool chose to ignore Vangundy’s complaint. Therefore, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. VanGundy" on Justia Law

In this case before the Indiana Supreme Court, Thomas DeCola, the appellant, filed a suit to quiet title after purchasing property owned by Norfolk Southern Corporation, the appellee, at a tax sale. The property had fallen into tax delinquency. DeCola sought judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Norfolk had not received proper notice of the tax sale, the petition for tax deed, or its right of redemption. The trial court converted DeCola's motion into one for summary judgment because it considered evidence outside the pleadings. In its detailed order, the trial court denied DeCola's summary judgment motion, finding the tax deed void due to lack of sufficient notice to Norfolk.DeCola appealed the denial of summary judgment, claiming it was a final order. However, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the trial court's order denying summary judgment was not a final judgment because it did not resolve all claims as to all parties. The Court stated that the order did not meet any of the five definitions of a "final judgment" as laid out in Rule 2(H) of the appellate rules. Therefore, the Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. View "DeCola v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, Inc." on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal the Supreme Court declined to adopt the apex doctrine, which can prevent parties from deposing top-level corporate executives absent the requesting party making certain initial showings, holding that remand was required for the trial court to consider a motion for a protective order with the benefit of guidance set forth in this opinion.Plaintiffs sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) alleging that despite being aware of the consequences of repetitive head trauma, the NCAA failed to implement reasonable concussion-management protocols to protect its athletes, causing three former college football players to die from a neurodegenerative disease linked to repetitive head trauma. The NCAA moved twice for a protective order to prevent Plaintiffs from deposing three of its high-ranking executives. After the trial court denied the motions the NCAA sought discretionary interlocutory review, inviting the Supreme Court to adopt the apex doctrine. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding (1) this appeal was properly before the Court; and (2) although the Court declines to adopt the apex doctrine, it establishes a framework that harmonizes its principles with the applicable trial rules to aid courts in determining whether good cause exists to prohibit or limit the deposition of a top-level official in a large organization. View "National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Finnerty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of a panel of the court of appeals dismissing an appeal in this temporary commitment case on the grounds that the appeal was moot, holding that "public interest exception" to mootness applied.After a hearing, the trial court found E.F. was gravely disabled and entered a temporary commitment order allowing for her emergency detention. While E.F.'s appeal was pending, the commitment order expired. The court of appeals dismissed E.F.'s appeal as moot, interpreting T.W. v. St. Vincent Hospital & Healthcare Center, Inc., 121 N.E.3d 1039 (Ind. 2019), as disfavoring the practice of applying the public interest exception except in "rare circumstances." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that E.F. should have the opportunity to make certain arguments before the court of appeals. View "In re Commitment of E.F." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by Solarize Indiana, Inc. seeking judicial review of the administration decision of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approving two filings submitted by Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana, Inc. under an expedited process known as the "Thirty-Day Rule," holding that Solarize lacked standing to bring this appeal.In objecting to Vectren's filings, Solarize, an organization that promotes the use of solar power in Indiana, asserted that the filings were not compliant with federal law. The IURC approved the filings, after which Solarize requested judicial review. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Solarize lacked standing because it failed to show that it was "adversely affected" by the IURC's order. View "Solarize Indiana, Inc. v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants relief from a default judgment, holding that the trial court's assessments of the parties' credibility and demeanor were sufficient to establish at least "slight evidence" of excusable neglect.Plaintiff sued Defendants alleging that certain statements Defendants made constituted defamation and false reporting. Because Defendants did not enter appearances or respond to the complaint the trial court granted default judgment to Plaintiffs. The trial court granted Defendants' motion for relief from the default judgment, concluding that Defendants were sincerely confused about their obligation to respond. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the trial court's fact-sensitive judgments showed that Defendants were entitled to relief. View "Riddle v. Cress" on Justia Law