Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Indiana Court of Appeals
Katherine Gonzalez v. Plaza Services, LLC
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
In Katherine Gonzalez v. Plaza Services, LLC, Gonzalez appealed a trial court order garnishing 25% of her wages to satisfy a $3,865.59 judgment that Plaza Services had obtained against her. Plaza had filed a motion for proceedings supplemental, leading the court to order Gonzalez to appear on August 14, 2025; Gonzalez appeared, but no hearing occurred because Plaza’s attorney did not, and the matter was handled off the record between counsel. Despite this, the trial court later entered the garnishment order, stating it had “heard the evidence.” The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by issuing the order without conducting the required hearing under Indiana Trial Rule 69(E).
procedure
The Lake of the Woods of Marshall County Conservancy District v. Remonstrators Against Establishment of the Conservancy District
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-02-19
The case concerned a petition by freeholders to establish the Lake of the Woods Conservancy District in Marshall County for purposes including water quality improvement, drainage, and flood control, which required signatures from at least a majority of affected freeholders. After the Natural Resources Commission reviewed the proposal and the Remonstrators filed an opposing petition with signatures, the trial court dismissed the original petition upon finding that the opposition had gathered a sufficient number of valid signatures from within the proposed boundaries. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err as factfinder when it parsed the evidence on boundaries and signatures, counted 140 valid opposing signatures (exceeding the statutory threshold), and concluded the District petition should be dismissed, given the deference owed to its factual determinations on the adequacy of the documentation.
environmentpropertyprocedure
K A v. Z G
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-01-30
K.A. appealed a protective order obtained by State Trooper Z.G. after K.A. created and posted on a Facebook page titled “Covington IN State Cop Watch,” which criticized the trooper for traffic stops and invited others to share sightings and experiences; the page included some third-party comments that Z.G. viewed as threats. The trial court ordered K.A. to remove the entire page. The Court of Appeals affirmed the protective order to the extent it bars true threats, which are unprotected by the First Amendment, but reversed the requirement to remove the full page. It held that the order improperly prohibited protected speech, such as criticism of a public official’s on-duty conduct, and constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint by banning future non-threatening posts. The court remanded for the order to be narrowed accordingly.
free speech
Carlos Martin Francisco v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2025-12-18
Carlos Martin Francisco, a legal permanent resident from Guatemala, appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief after pleading guilty in 2020 to Level 6 felony battery under a plea agreement that dismissed a sexual battery charge and imposed probation. He argued that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because trial counsel failed to specifically advise him that the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony likely to trigger mandatory deportation and bar most forms of immigration relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the post-conviction court's denial of relief. The court held that the plea was valid because Francisco received repeated warnings—in the plea agreement itself, from counsel on at least two occasions, and from the trial court—that a guilty plea could adversely affect his immigration status or result in deportation. Counsel had no duty or ability to guarantee specific future actions by immigration authorities, and the existing advisements were sufficient to establish that Francisco understood the potential immigration consequences.
immigrationcriminal law
Indiana State Health Commissioner v. Caitlin Bernard, M.D.
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2025-12-05
Two Indiana obstetrician-gynecologists who perform abortions sued the state health commissioner and an anti-abortion group, seeking a declaratory judgment that statutorily required terminated pregnancy reports (TPRs)—which contain patient age, consent details, procedure location, and other identifying information—are exempt from public disclosure under the Access to Public Records Act as patient medical records. They also requested a preliminary injunction barring the commissioner from releasing any TPRs in response to public records requests. The trial court found the doctors had standing and granted the injunction. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the doctors had standing to seek relief, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm to patient privacy, and that the injunction was appropriately broad to maintain the status quo during litigation.
abortionhealthcareprocedure
Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. v. U.S. Specialty Insurance Company
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2025-11-06
Cantor Fitzgerald and Tower Bridge sued several insurance companies, including the Nonresident Defendants (U.S. Specialty, Liberty Mutual, and National Union), alleging breach of contract and related claims after the insurers declined to fully cover a claimed loss exceeding $30 million under a fidelity bond that covered employee fraud. The Nonresident Defendants, none of which are incorporated or principally based in Indiana, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the defendants' authorization to conduct insurance business in Indiana and their pro-rata participation in the same bond as an Indiana insurer (Federal) did not constitute sufficient minimum contacts or purposeful availment of the state. The court also rejected the argument that Indiana Code Section 27-1-17-4(7) automatically conferred jurisdiction and denied Cantor's request for jurisdictional discovery, as no threshold showing had been made that jurisdiction might exist.
business & regulatoryprocedure