Indiana Oral Arguments

J. Bradford
J. Weissmann
J. DeBoer

Panel:

Case No:

25A-PL-1713

County:

Marion

COA: Justin C. Gasaway v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 03 Mar 2026 16:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

This argument takes place at 10:30 AM Local (Central) time, and 11:30 AM Eastern Time.

During an incident on Justin Gasaway’s front porch, Gasaway kicked Bryan Owen in the head and side and then stabbed him once in the back. While transporting Owen to the hospital, paramedics tended to his other injuries and didn’t notice the stab wound. The stab wound wasn’t discovered until Owen was at the hospital, where he later died. At Gasaway’s murder trial, the trial court excluded testimony from the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy that discovering the stab wound sooner would’ve increased Owen’s chances of survival. The jury found Gasaway guilty of murder and Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, and Gasaway admitted to being a habitual offender.

Gasaway now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the pathologist’s testimony and in admitting certain hearsay testimony, that the evidence is insufficient to prove he knowingly or intentionally killed Owen, and that the trial court made errors in its abstract of judgment.

Justin C. Gasaway v. State of Indiana

When:

TUE, MAR 3, 2026 at 11:30 AM

Court:

J. Vaidik
J. Tavitas
J. Scheele

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CR-1614

Lower Case:

84D05-2001-MR-98

County:

Vigo

Location:

Griffith High School

COA: Martinez v. Linderwell

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 15:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

Plaintiff Martinez sued Defendant Linderwell for killing her dog, Douglas, and wounding her other dog, Tilly. Linderwell claimed the dogs were on his property one night and attacked his dog. He shot the dogs when they returned in a menacing fashion the next morning. Linderwell buried Douglas and Tilly returned home injured. Martinez asked the trial court for replacement costs for Douglas, the cost of the vet bills for Tilly, and the return of Douglas’ dog tags. Linderwell argued his actions were justified under Indiana’s Castle Doctrine, there was comparative fault due to Martinez’ failure to contain her dogs, there were no damages because Douglas had no monetary value, and he did not have possession of the dog tags. The trial court denied Martinez’ claim.

On appeal, Martinez argues the trial court erred in its findings and Linderwell’s actions constitute conversion, criminal mischief, and/or trespass to chattels. Linderwell claims these arguments are waived because Martinez did not raise them in the trial court and he did not have the requisite mens rea for conversion or criminal mischief. He also asks for appellate attorney fees.

Martinez v. Linderwell

When:

TUE, FEB 17, 2026 at 10:30 AM

Court:

J. Kenworthy
J. Felix
J. DeBoer

Panel:

Case No:

25A-SC-953

County:

Wells

Location:

Ivy Tech Lafayette

COA: Bruce Mendenhall v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

In 2007, a Tennessee police officer approached Bruce Mendenhall’s semi-truck at a truck stop in Nashville and asked to talk to him about a case he was investigating. When Mendenhall opened his truck door, the officer observed blood and asked if he could search the truck. Mendenhall agreed, and the officer found blood-soaked women’s clothing. Mendenhall was taken into custody and interviewed, during which he stated that the blood was from a woman—later identified as Carmen Purpura—that he had picked up the night before at a truck stop in Indianapolis and that she had been shot in the head with his rifle (though he didn’t admit shooting her). Police in Indianapolis searched for Purpura’s body but never found it.

In 2008, Mendenhall was charged with murder in Marion County. The Indiana case was put on hold while Mendenhall was tried for other murders in Tennessee. In 2011, skeletal remains were found in Kentucky, which were identified as Purpura’s in 2016. Mendenhall’s Indiana trial was held in 2025, and he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 65 years, to be served consecutive to his life sentences in Tennessee. Mendenhall now appeals, arguing that Indiana did not have territorial jurisdiction, that Marion County was not the proper venue, and that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized from his truck because he was not given a Pirtle warning, which Indiana law requires, before he consented to the search in Tennessee.

Bruce Mendenhall v. State of Indiana

When:

FRI, FEB 13, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Court:

J. Altice
J. Vaidik
J. Bradford

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CR-00775

Lower Case:

49D27-0804-MR-77498

County:

Marion

Location:

Supreme Court Courtroom

COA: Pandel Ludwig v. Flaherty & Collins, Inc.

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 16:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Pandel Ludwig fell on an icy sidewalk while leaving the fitness center at an apartment complex owned by Flaherty & Collins, Inc. A few days later, Ludwig’s boyfriend suggested to the apartment’s office staff that security cameras may have recorded the fall. An employee reviewed surveillance footage but determined cameras inside the fitness center did not capture the fall because their view of the door was blocked by exercise equipment. Ludwig later sent a letter asking the apartment to preserve any video of the fall. By the time the apartment received it, its security system had automatically deleted all footage from the day of the incident.

At trial, Ludwig presented evidence that one camera had an unobstructed view of the sidewalk next to where she had fallen that wouldn’t have captured her fall but might have shown whether the apartment salted the sidewalk earlier in the day. She argued that if so, the jury could “be pretty darn sure [the apartment] would keep” the footage. Ludwig moved the trial court for a spoliation of evidence instruction, which the court rejected. However, the court did not limit Ludwig from arguing spoliation during closing arguments. The jury returned a verdict for the apartment, finding Ludwig 90% at fault for her injuries. Ludwig moved for a new trial, which the court denied.

On appeal, Ludwig contends the trial court erred in failing to give the spoliation instruction and that the way the jury completed the verdict form calls into question whether they understood the effect of their verdict.

Pandel Ludwig v. Flaherty & Collins, Inc.

When:

THU, FEB 12, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Rescheduled from WED, JAN 14, 2026 at 1:30 PM

Court:

J. Bradford
J. Weissmann
J. DeBoer

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CT-941

Lower Case:

49D03-2303-CT-13118

County:

Marion

COA: Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, et al. v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Wed, 11 Feb 2026 18:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

American Commercial Barge Line, LLC (ACBL) is an Indiana company that provides barge transportation services. Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 1861, Liberty International Underwriters, StarNet Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, and XL Specialty Insurance Company (collectively, Appellants) are insurers that issued policies to ACBL. Barges owned by ACBL’s predecessor were cleaned by an entity known as SBA at a shipyard in Jennings, Louisiana. Many years later, environmental damage was discovered at the shipyard, and ACBL was named a potentially responsible party.
Thereafter, ACBL filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the Appellants seeking a declaration that the Appellants must defend and indemnify ACBL under excess/umbrella liability policies Appellants sold ACBL to cover environmental liabilities. ACBL also sought damages arising from the Appellants’ failure to provide coverage for the liabilities alleged to have arisen from the barge cleaning process. ACBL moved for partial summary judgment on choice of law, and the Appellants
cross moved for summary judgment, asserting that ACBL’s claims are barred by language in the excess policies. The trial court granted ACBL’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Indiana law governs the excess policies. The court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that ACBL’s claims are not barred. On appeal the Appellants contend that assuming Indiana law applies, under Indiana law the watercraft limitation provision precludes coverage for ACBL’s pollution liability, and the trial court erred when it entered partial summary judgment in favor of ACBL. Thus, the Appellants request entry of summary judgment in their favor. In the alternative, the Appellants assert that even if the trial court correctly applied Indiana law, the policies are maritime contracts governed by federal maritime law, which precludes coverage under the policies, and the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment for ACBL on the choice of law issue.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, et al. v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC

When:

WED, FEB 11, 2026 at 1:30 PM

Court:

J. Najam
J. Kenworthy
J. Scheele

Panel:

Case No:

25A-PL-1073

Lower Case:

49D01-2011-PL-40621

County:

Marion

TAX: United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

This case presents a question of first impression concerning Indiana’s Special Fuel Tax, Indiana Code § 6-6-2.5: whether special fuel consumed on private roads qualifies for the "nonhighway purposes" exemption pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 6-6-2.5-28(a) and 6-6-2.5-30(a)(8).

United Parcel Service, Inc., (“UPS”) operates package delivery vehicles throughout Indiana that travel on both public highways and private property (private drives, parking lots, residential roadways and similar properties). Using data derived from telematics equipment attached to the vehicles, UPS calculated fuel consumed exclusively on private roads during 2018 and 2019 and filed refund claims for those years.

The Department of State Revenue (“DOR”) denied the claims, determining UPS did not meet the requirements for a refund under Indiana Code § 6-6-2.5-28 because it had not overcome the presumption that special fuel is “consumed for the purpose of propelling motor vehicles on a highway.” DOR Final Order Denying Refund at 6.

UPS filed a Petition for Original Tax Appeal, and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment will now be argued.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

When:

TUE, FEB 10, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Court:

Indiana Tax Court

Panel:

J. McAdam

Case No:

24T-TA-00018

County:

Marion

Location:

Court of Appeals Courtroom

COA: Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 15:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

Rodriguez Morgan was charged with murdering Tracy Harmon, with whom he shared four children and had known for decades, after his stepson claimed to have seen Morgan shoot her in the head. Before trial, Morgan filed a motion in limine requesting that the court prohibit the State from admitting any evidence of prior domestic violence or threats of violence by Morgan against Harmon. The court granted the motion in part and only allowed the State to elicit testimony from their daughter about Morgan’s recent threats to kill Harmon. The jury returned a guilty verdict, but later informed the court that the daughter’s deposition, which had not been admitted into evidence, was sent back with the jurors in deliberations and considered by them in coming to their verdict. That deposition included testimony indicating Morgan had a long history of violence toward Harmon, had threatened their daughter, abused alcohol, and always carried a gun. The trial court denied Morgan’s motion for a mistrial. Morgan now appeals, arguing the court erred in denying his motion.

Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana

When:

MON, FEB 9, 2026 at 10:30 AM

Court:

J. Foley
J. Kenworthy
J. DeBoer

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CR-836

Lower Case:

49D07-2310-MR-30268

County:

Marion

Location:

Indian Creek High School

COA: Gregory C. Guilfoyle v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 05 Feb 2026 16:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Gregory Guilfoyle appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted murder and neglect of a dependent. Guilfoyle shot his wife in the head and shot a law enforcement officer in the chest; he committed the latter shooting in front of his toddler. At trial, Guilfoyle asserted that he was insane when he committed these offenses. The jury found him guilty but mentally ill, and the trial court sentenced him to 100 years of incarceration.

Guilfoyle presents two issues on appeal. First, Guilfoyle argues that he presented sufficient evidence to support his insanity defense such that he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Second, Guilfoyle claims his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Gregory C. Guilfoyle v. State of Indiana

When:

THU, FEB 5, 2026 at 11:00 AM

Court:

J. Vaidik
J. Tavitas
J. Felix

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CR-1406

Lower Case:

24C01-2405-F1-000269

County:

Franklin

Location:

Indiana State University

IND: Jada Sha'nel Monroe v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Monroe pleaded guilty without an agreement to Count I, murder; Count II, murder in perpetration of robbery; and Count III, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. The Porter Superior Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 72.5 years for Counts I and III. It did not enter judgment on Count II. Monroe appealed, arguing (1) the convictions violated double jeopardy, and (2) the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Monroe v. State, No. 24A-CR-2812 (Ind. Ct. App. June 27, 2025) (mem.), trans. pending. Monroe has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over the appeal.

Jada Sha'nel Monroe v. State of Indiana

When:

TUE, FEB 3, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

24A-CR-02812

Lower Case:

64D01-2306-MR-005623

County:

Porter

IND: Jackie L. Bowen v. Mark J. Bowen

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 03 Feb 2026 14:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

The Bowens’ 2017 divorce agreement entitled Jackie to a portion of Mark’s accrued pension benefit valued as of January 2017. In October 2020, Mark entered a deferred retirement option program (DROP), allowing him to accumulate a pension benefit while still working. Upon retiring in September 2023, Mark received a lump sum DROP payment. The Hamilton Superior Court denied Jackie’s petition to hold Mark in contempt for failing to pay her a portion of the DROP payment. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the agreement encompassed the DROP payment. Bowen v. Bowen, 262 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. pending. Mark has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

Jackie L. Bowen v. Mark J. Bowen

When:

TUE, FEB 3, 2026 at 9:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

24A-DN-01655

Lower Case:

29D05-1701-DN-000065

County:

Hamilton

COA: Dede R. Bisel v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Fri, 30 Jan 2026 16:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

This oral argument takes place at 10:30 AM Central (Local) Time and 11:30 Eastern Time.

Jay County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant Tony Lennartz received information from several complainants about possible drug activity at Dede Bisel’s house. After observing the house, Lt. Lennartz performed a “knock and talk,” but noone answered. A couple days later, Lt. Lennartz was watching the house and saw a male and female enter a back door. Lt. Lennartz knocked on the back door, the female (who was not Bisel) answered, and marijuana odor and smoke came “billowin’ out.” He returned to his squad car to call for backup and apply for a search warrant.

While at his vehicle, the male and female exited the home. Lt. Lennartz approached and asked if Bisel was inside; they responded she was. He instructed them to return and knock on the door. Bisel answered, then tried to slam the door and retreat to the living room. Concerned that Bisel would destroy evidence, Lt. Lennartz entered the home to detain Bisel. Bisel resisted, kicking and pushing him and other officers. Lt. Lennartz detained Bisel and applied for a warrant, which was granted the same day. Police executed the warrant and located 34 grams of methamphetamine, 54 grams of marijuana, and paraphernalia that included scales.

The State charged Bisel with numerous crimes, including dealing in methamphetamine, battery by bodily waste, maintaining a common nuisance, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia. Bisel filed motions to suppress, arguing Lt. Lennartz violated our state and federal constitutions by entering her home without a warrant. The trial court denied the motions.

On appeal, Bisel argues the trial court erred in denying her motions to suppress because the officer’s “knock and talk,” warrantless entry and other conduct violated the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions.

Dede R. Bisel v. State of Indiana

When:

FRI, JAN 30, 2026 at 11:30 AM

Court:

J. Tavitas
J. Felix
J. Scheele

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CR-1055

Lower Case:

38C01-2303-F2-3

County:

Jay

Location:

IU Northwest

TAX: Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Co. Assessor

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 29 Jan 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC (“Convention HQ”) owns the JW Marriott Hotel located in downtown Indianapolis. On the March 1, 2010 assessment date, the subject property was under construction and assigned an assessed value of $86,987,100 ($15,270,400 for land and $71,716,700 for improvements).

Convention HQ subsequently appealed the assessment first with the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then with the Indiana Board of Tax Review. On June 28, 2019, after the Indiana Board failed to issue a final determination within the statutorily prescribed period, Convention HQ appealed to the Tax Court, alleging that the 2010 assessment of its property violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution, 42 USC § 1983, the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Indiana Constitution, and the requirement that property be valued pursuant to its market value-in-use.

On November 4, 2019, Convention HQ filed a motion that sought to bifurcate the proceedings concerning the constitutional and valuation claims and stay the proceedings on the valuation claims until the constitutional claims were resolved. On December 03, 2019, the Court granted Convention HQ’s motion over the Assessor’s objection.

After the parties unsuccessfully moved for partial summary judgment, the Court conducted a three-day trial in February of 2022. During the trial, Convention HQ claimed that its evidence showed that the Marion County Assessor had violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Indiana Constitution by failing to assess the buildings of under construction commercial properties in Marion County uniformly between the 2006 and 2019 assessment dates

The parties now disagree about which claims remain.

Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Co. Assessor

When:

THU, JAN 29, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Court:

Indiana Tax Court

Panel:

J. McAdam

Case No:

19T-TA-00021

County:

Marion

Location:

Court of Appeals Courtroom

COA: Carla Miller v. Indiana Gas Company, Inc.

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

A natural gas explosion occurred in Clark County, which resulted in property damage and personal injury claims of the homeowner and Appellant, who lived next door to the home where the explosion occurred. Appellant filed her complaint against Indiana Gas Company, Inc., alleging numerous causes of action based on the premise that the natural gas distributed to the neighbors’ home lacked the necessary levels of oderant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Indiana Gas Company, and Appellant appeals raising arguments that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it (1) improperly weighed the facts and evidence causing it to reach its own conclusions despite material facts that exist about causation and whether the gas sold by Indiana Gas Company was properly odorized, (2) failed to apply the elements of the Indiana Products Liability Act and instead held that the Indiana Utility Regulation Commission and Indiana Gas Tariff govern negligence and products liability cases in Indiana, and (3) improperly relied on inadmissible hearsay and unauthenticated documents in it grant of summary judgment.

COA: E.B. v. IDCS

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

E.B. (Mother) has two teenage daughters, one of whom alleged she had been sexually molested by her stepfather (Mother’s husband). Mother believed the report was inaccurate and was motivated by the children’s father (Mother’s ex-husband). The Indiana Department of Child Services petitioned to find both children to be children in need of services (CHINS) and successfully sought removal of the children from Mother’s home. After Mother obtained one continuance to prepare for the CHINS factfinding hearing, she sought an emergency continuance based on the hospitalization of one of her two counsel shortly before the hearing. The trial court denied the continuance and proceeded with the hearing, at which Mother was represented by her recently hospitalized attorney.

During the hearing, the trial court excluded Mother’s evidence of the stepfather’s polygraph results. The court ultimately found both children to be CHINS. Mother appeals, claiming the trial court erred in denying her emergency motion for continuance and in excluding the polygraph evidence.

E.B. v. IDCS

When:

THU, JAN 22, 2026 at 10:30 AM

Court:

J. Weissmann
J. Kenworthy
J. DeBoer

Panel:

Case No:

25A-JC-1315

Lower Case:

07C01-2410-JC-105; 07C01-2410-JC-106

County:

Brown

Location:

Frankton Jr./Sr. High School

IND: David Noble and Jennifer Noble v. Fairview Mobile Home Community, LLC, John Bird, and Dakota Thompson

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

The Nobles sued Fairview after a neighbors’ dog escaped confinement, crossed Fairview’s common areas, and attacked Mr. Noble on his property. The Washington Superior Court granted summary judgment for Fairview, but a split Court of Appeals reversed, finding Fairview may have owed a duty to the Nobles. Noble v. Fairview Mobile Home Cmty., LLC, No. 24A-CT-2917 (Ind. Ct. App. May 15, 2025) (mem.), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted Fairview’s petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction over this case.

David Noble and Jennifer Noble v. Fairview Mobile Home Community, LLC, John Bird, and Dakota Thompson

When:

THU, JAN 22, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

25S-CT-00332

Lower Case:

24A-CT-02917
88D01-2101-CT-000026

County:

Washington

IND: Carlos Tacio Ortiz v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 22 Jan 2026 14:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

In 2009, Ortiz pleaded guilty to murder. The written plea agreement said Ortiz waived the right to challenge his sentence as erroneous and to request relief under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). The trial court never advised Ortiz he had the right to appeal an illegal sentence, and Ortiz did not file a direct appeal. In March 2022, Ortiz sought permission to file a belated appeal, which the Elkhart Circuit Court denied. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding Ortiz was not at fault for the delay in filing and was diligent in seeking permission to file a belated appeal. Ortiz v. State, No. 25A-CR-25 (Ind. Ct. App. May 30, 2025) (mem.), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted the State’s petition to transfer and assumed jurisdiction.

Carlos Tacio Ortiz v. State of Indiana

When:

THU, JAN 22, 2026 at 9:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

25S-CR-00303

Lower Case:

20C01-0612-MR-00009
24A-CR-00025

County:

Elkhart

COA: Isaiah Jerone Stokes v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 20 Jan 2026 15:30:00 +0000

Case Summary

In July 2023, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer noticed a vehicle associated with Isaiah Stokes traveling on the road. The officer knew Stokes had outstanding warrants for his arrest, so he called for backup and followed the vehicle, which eventually pulled into a gas station and parked at a pump. Stokes went inside the gas station and was arrested by officers on his way out. After speaking with the gas station attendant and determining the vehicle needed to be moved, the officers impounded the vehicle and initiated a tow. In the meantime, an officer conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and immediately found a handgun lying on the passenger seat.

The State charged Stokes with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Before his trial, Stokes filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the impoundment and inventory search of his vehicle. The court conducted a suppression hearing and denied the motion. A jury found Stokes guilty of possessing a firearm, and he admitted he had previously been convicted of a serious violent felony.

On appeal, Stokes argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the handgun and any references thereto into evidence at trial. He claims that the impoundment and inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Focusing on the threshold question of impoundment, he argues that law enforcement’s decision to impound his vehicle was pretextual and neither authorized by statute nor the police’s community-caretaking function.

Isaiah Jerone Stokes v. State of Indiana

When:

TUE, JAN 20, 2026 at 10:30 AM

Court:

J. Altice
J. Kenworthy
J. DeBoer

Panel:

Case No:

25A-CR-531

Lower Case:

49D28-2307-F4-20724

County:

Marion

Location:

Arsenal Tech High School

IND: PTI Union, LLC, Black Creek Corporation, Broadview Investments, LLC, Edward T. Noland, Jr., Irrevocable Gifting Trust, Tarrasch Family Trust, Revocable Living Trust of Edward T. Noland, Jr., and Laura Noland Tarrasch Revocable Trust v. Michelle McBride, on her own behalf and as Personal Representati

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Ronald McBride sued numerous talcum powder sellers, distributors, and manufacturers alleging asbestos in the talc-powder caused his mesothelioma. The Marion Superior Court denied Missouri manufacturer PTI Union’s and its affiliates’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because of PTI’s contractual relationship with an Indiana distributor and the volume of talc-powder shipped to Indiana. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding PTI and its affiliates did not do “something more” than put the product into the stream of commerce. PTI Union, LLC v. McBride, 261 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer and accepted jurisdiction over the appeal.

PTI Union, LLC, Black Creek Corporation, Broadview Investments, LLC, Edward T. Noland, Jr., Irrevocable Gifting Trust, Tarrasch Family Trust, Revocable Living Trust of Edward T. Noland, Jr., and Laura Noland Tarrasch Revocable Trust v. Michelle McBride, on her own behalf and as Personal Representati

When:

THU, JAN 15, 2026 at 10:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

25S-MI-00286

Lower Case:

24A-MI-00931
49D13-2110-MI-034781

County:

Marion

IND: Simon Property Group, L.P., a/k/a Simon Property Group, Inc., et al. v. Kaya P.R. Stewart, Eumeka R. Stewart, and Samuel Stewart, III in their Individual Capacities, et al.

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 15 Jan 2026 14:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

A gunman opened fire in Greenwood Park Mall. One victim, Kaya Stewart, and her family sued the property owner and its security company in Marion Superior Court raising premises liability and negligence claims. The property owner and security company moved to dismiss the complaint under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing they had no duty to mall patrons because shootings are unforeseeable as a matter of law. The trial court denied their motions, finding the Stewarts’ complaint had met their obligation to provide notice of the claim they were pursuing. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Simon Prop. Grp., L.P. v. Stewart, 263 N.E.2d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). The property owner and security company have petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

Simon Property Group, L.P., a/k/a Simon Property Group, Inc., et al. v. Kaya P.R. Stewart, Eumeka R. Stewart, and Samuel Stewart, III in their Individual Capacities, et al.

When:

THU, JAN 15, 2026 at 9:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

24A-CT-01700

Lower Case:

49D01-2401-CT-000154

County:

Marion

TAX: IBEW Local 305, Inc. v. Allen Co. Assessor Int’l. Assoc. of Bridge, Structural, & Reinforcing Iron Workers’ Local Union No. 147, et al. v. Allen Co. Assessor

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 18:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

IBEW Local 305, Inc. and the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local No. 147 each own property in Allen County which they lease to charitable trusts that are run by Joint Apprenticeship Training Committees (JATCs). The JATCs provides education and training to apprentices in the electrical and iron-working industries.

The property owners filed applications seeking total exemption from property tax for the 2020 and 2022 tax years. The County granted only partial exemptions, resulting in an appeal to the Indiana Board of Tax Review. On March 10, 2025, the Board issued a final determination and concluded that neither charitable trust qualified as a “school” within the meaning of Indiana Code section 6-1.1-10-36.3(c)(2), again denying the requests for full tax exemptions.

Local 305 and Local 147 each filed appeals with the Indiana Tax Court, arguing that their lessee charitable trusts each qualify as a “school” under Indiana Code section 6-1.1-10-36.3(c)(2) and therefore qualify the subject properties for total tax exemption under Indiana’s predominant use standard. The Assessor disagrees, arguing that the trusts are not schools, and thus the subject properties only qualify for exemptions proportional to their use under subsection (c)(3) of the same statute.

IBEW Local 305, Inc. v. Allen Co. Assessor Int’l. Assoc. of Bridge, Structural, & Reinforcing Iron Workers’ Local Union No. 147, et al. v. Allen Co. Assessor

When:

THU, DEC 18, 2025 at 1:00 PM

Court:

Indiana Tax Court

Panel:

J. McAdam

Case No:

25T-TA-00003 and 25T-TA-00004

County:

Allen

Location:

Court of Appeals Courtroom

IND: City of Fishers, Ind., City of Indianapolis, Ind., City of Evansville, Ind., and City of Valparaiso, Ind., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Netflix, Inc., Disney DTC, LLC, Hulu, LLC, et al.

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Four Indiana cities sued multiple streaming services in Marion County Commercial Court for failing to obtain a franchise and pay a fee under the Video Service Franchises Act. While the case was pending, the General Assembly amended the VSF Act. Over the cities’ argument that the legislation violated the Indiana Constitution, the trial court granted the streaming services’ motion to dismiss based on new legislation. The cities appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no constitutional violation. City of Fishers, v. Netflix, Inc., 264 N.E.3d 69 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). The cities have petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

City of Fishers, Ind., City of Indianapolis, Ind., City of Evansville, Ind., and City of Valparaiso, Ind., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Netflix, Inc., Disney DTC, LLC, Hulu, LLC, et al.

When:

THU, DEC 18, 2025 at 10:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

24A-PL-01657

Lower Case:

49D01-2008-PL-026436

County:

Marion

IND: Tervarus L. Gary v. State of Indiana

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 18 Dec 2025 14:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Police found Tervarus Gary intoxicated and carried his limp body into jail. Gary subsequently informed jail staff he possessed a knife, pepper spray, and a lighter. Officers instructed Gary to place the pepper spray on a bench, which he failed to do. The State charged Gary with Level 5 felony possession of material capable of causing bodily injury by an inmate. The Elkhart Superior Court entered judgment on the jury’s guilty verdict, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Gary v. State, 264 N.E.3d 690 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted the State’s transfer petition and assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

Tervarus L. Gary v. State of Indiana

When:

THU, DEC 18, 2025 at 9:00 AM

Court:

Panel:

Case No:

25S-CR-00265

Lower Case:

20D01-2405-F5-000140
24A-CR-02712

County:

Elkhart

COA: Callie R. Burke v. Ind. State Personnel Department, et al.

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Tue, 16 Dec 2025 16:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

Callie Burke challenged her termination of employment from the Indiana Department of Correction by filing a complaint with the State Employee Appeals Commission, which held that Burke was an unclassified employee subject to at will employment. Burke then filed a petition for judicial review, which the trial court dismissed for Burke’s failure to timely file the agency record. On appeal, Burke argues that a statutory amendment required the agency to file the agency record; Burke’s employment was improperly classified; and the Civil Service Reform Act of 2011 is unconstitutional.

Callie R. Burke v. Ind. State Personnel Department, et al.

When:

TUE, DEC 16, 2025 at 11:00 AM

Court:

J. Bailey
J. Tavitas
J. Kenworthy

Panel:

Case No:

25A-MI-1313

Lower Case:

46C01-2401-MI-13

County:

LaPorte

COA: Reginald D. Akins, Jr. v. State

noreply@blogger.com (Josh S. Tatum) — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 18:00:00 +0000

Case Summary

After stopping Reginald Akins for driving with a suspended license, Muncie police arrested him on outstanding warrants. A police dog that was trained to detect marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine then alerted on Akins’s car, leading officers to discover methamphetamine, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. Akins argues the search was unlawful because the dog could not distinguish between the odor of illegal marijuana and legal hemp, so its alert might have been triggered by a legal substance rather than by illegal drugs. Therefore, Akins claims that this alert did not give police a lawful basis to search the car. He also contends the State committed misconduct by calling his former attorney to testify during the habitual-offender phase of the proceedings, asserting that the prosecutor’s decision induced his prior attorney to breach the attorney-client privilege.

Reginald D. Akins, Jr. v. State

When:

THU, DEC 11, 2025 at 1:00 PM

Court: