The case involved landowners challenging a town's special exception approval for a large commercial solar project in the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction fringe outside the town's limits, arguing the approval was void because the town had not included extraterritorial jurisdiction provisions in its comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance as required by statute. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the town's failure to follow statutory prerequisites rendered the approval voidable rather than void, meaning the challenge was subject to the standard 30-day filing deadline for zoning appeals and was therefore untimely. The court reached this conclusion after reviewing precedents on ultra vires zoning board actions and distinguishing between jurisdictional defects that render decisions void and procedural errors that make them merely voidable. It affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the landowners' lawsuit.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Kathryne Tillett, who was charged with two counts of child molesting as Level 1 felonies against her young children. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Tillett's motion to file a belated notice of insanity defense, finding she did not show good cause for the delay despite mental health evaluations. The court also upheld the admissibility of evidence under the Protected Person Statute and found the sentence appropriate given the nature of the offense and the offender's character.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved athlete Taliyah Brooks, who sued USA Track & Field seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate a liability waiver she had signed before competing in the Olympic Trials, where she suffered heat-related injuries that prevented her from making the team, with the goal of later pursuing tort claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to USATF on the waiver before any tort claims were filed. Brooks then moved to amend her complaint to add tort claims two days after final judgment and shortly before the statute of limitations expired, but the trial court denied the motion. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the denial, reasoning that the final judgment rule requires consistent application to maintain order in civil litigation and that Indiana Trial Rule 15(A) does not permit amendments after final judgment.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Kortney Lee Elzey, who was serving a sentence in a county jail and filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief requesting that it be forwarded to the State Public Defender. The trial court denied the request to forward the petition, following Post-Conviction Rule 1(2), which requires forwarding only for petitioners in the Department of Correction, and ultimately denied relief. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err, as it complied with the existing rule even though a statute entitles indigent petitioners in any penal facility, including county jails, to representation by the Public Defender. The Court reasoned that inconsistencies exist between the statute and the rule because the rule has not been updated to reflect legislative expansions in sentencing, and referred the issue to its Rules Committee to consider extending the forwarding requirement.

criminal lawprocedure