L Mark Bailey

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 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. 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, 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

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 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

In this Indiana CHINS case, the Department of Child Services sought to have T.R.’s three children declared in need of services, and a circuit court magistrate initially authorized the petition and temporary custody. After Father successfully moved for a change of judge under Trial Rule 76, the case transferred to a superior court judge, who later became unavailable and appointed the same magistrate to handle a review hearing and the fact-finding hearing. Father objected on jurisdictional grounds, but the magistrate overruled the objections, found the children to be CHINS, and issued a dispositional order. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the magistrate lacked authority to preside once the change-of-judge motion had been granted, because allowing her to continue would nullify the rule’s purpose and exceed the limited appointment power in Trial Rule 79(I).

family lawprocedure

The Indiana Department of Child Services filed petitions alleging that three minor children were Children in Need of Services, based on evidence that the youngest child had sustained multiple unexplained fractures consistent with abuse, while the older siblings faced related neglect allegations. After several continuances of the fact-finding hearing—granted for reasons including pending medical records, an indispensable expert witness’s unavailability, and new counsel’s need for additional preparation time—the trial court dismissed the petitions, citing violations of statutory deadlines for CHINS proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court had previously found good cause for each continuance and therefore erred in dismissing the cases on timeliness grounds when the parties had shown justification for the delays. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

Doug Wynkoop sued the Town of Cedar Lake after his termination as a code enforcement officer, claiming the town's Personnel Policy Manual created a protected property interest in his job that entitled him to due process before discipline or firing. The trial court granted summary judgment to the town, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that Wynkoop was an at-will employee because the Manual expressly stated it was not an employment contract and contained a clear at-will provision. Although the Manual outlined progressive discipline and appeal procedures, these did not override at-will status or create a constitutionally protected interest under the Due Process Clause, and Wynkoop showed no detrimental reliance on the procedures.

labor & employmentcivil rightsproperty

Morris and Coakes sued Crain, Redpath, and BioSafe, claiming they had been promised ownership interests in the new company based on oral discussions, proposed share allocations, and their contributions (such as paying rent, signing a lease, and remodeling premises) to take over Waste Recovery’s business, but were excluded when Crain and Redpath formed BioSafe as a 50/50 LLC and later ousted Morris. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the breach-of-contract, unjust-enrichment, and estoppel claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendants had not shown the absence of genuine issues of material fact on those theories; designated evidence of the parties’ negotiations, marketing materials naming the three men as principals, and Morris’s pre-formation contributions raised triable questions whether an enforceable oral agreement existed or whether equity required recognition of the plaintiffs’ interests.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case Ananthaneni v. Access Therapies, Inc. was an appeal filed in the Indiana Court of Appeals under case number 49A02-1109-PL-902. The court issued a one-word order dismissing the matter on June 11, 2012. Judge Bailey authored the order, with Chief Judge Robb and Judge Mathias concurring. No facts, issues, or legal analysis appear in the provided excerpt.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The provided excerpt from McGuinness v. McGuinness does not include any description of the underlying facts, the trial court's ruling, or the Court of Appeals' reasoning. It states only that the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter, with all three judges concurring. Without additional details from the full opinion, a substantive summary of the case, decision, or reasoning is not possible based on the text given.

family law

In McCoy v. State, the appellant sought review of a trial court's ruling in a post-conviction relief proceeding. The Indiana Court of Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum decision issued on May 25, 2012, affirmed the lower court's outcome. Judges Bailey, Robb, and Mathias participated, with the panel providing no further published explanation of the claims or legal analysis.

criminal lawprocedure

Kimberly Pieper was convicted by a jury of neglect of a dependent and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, then admitted to being a habitual substance offender after the State added that allegation months after the omnibus date. She appealed, arguing that the trial court should have dismissed the habitual offender allegation as untimely under Indiana Code section 35-34-1-5 because the State lacked good cause for the late filing. The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without addressing the timeliness issue. The court held that, by admitting the habitual substance offender allegation, Pieper entered a plea that waived her right to challenge pre-trial rulings on direct appeal, citing Tumulty v. State and Alvey v. State for the principle that such claims must instead be raised in post-conviction proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case In re Marriage of R.B. and K.S. concerned the dissolution of marriage between the two parties in Indiana. The Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal from the trial court's rulings in an unpublished memorandum decision. It affirmed the lower court in part, reversed in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings, with Judge Bailey writing for a panel that included Chief Judge Robb and Judge Mathias.

family law

This case was a criminal appeal brought by Barker against the State of Indiana before the Indiana Court of Appeals. The court reviewed the trial court's ruling under case number 36A01-1109-CR-405 and issued an unpublished memorandum decision on May 9, 2012, affirming the lower court's outcome. Judge Bailey authored the decision, with Chief Judge Robb and Judge Mathias concurring. No further details on the underlying facts, legal issues, or specific reasoning appear in the memorandum decision provided.

criminal law

In Moore v. State, the defendant appealed a criminal conviction or sentence from an Indiana trial court. The Court of Appeals of Indiana reviewed the matter in an unpublished memorandum decision and affirmed the trial court's ruling. Judges Bailey, Robb, and Mathias all concurred in the result, indicating they found no basis to overturn the lower court's disposition.

criminal law

The case Hambrock v. Star Wealth Management was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a trial court ruling in an estate matter docketed under No. 49A04-1109-ES-532. The Court of Appeals, through an unpublished memorandum decision issued on April 27, 2012, by Judge Bailey with Chief Judge Robb and Judge Mathias concurring, affirmed the lower court's disposition. Because the opinion provides no further details on the underlying facts, legal issues, or analysis, the affirmance rests solely on the panel's determination that the trial court's outcome should stand without elaboration in the published record.

property

The case Spurr v. Spurr was a domestic relations matter (as indicated by the DR case number) before the Indiana Court of Appeals, involving parties with the same surname and likely concerning divorce, dissolution, or related issues. The court reviewed a lower court ruling and issued an unpublished memorandum decision that reversed the trial court's outcome and remanded the case for further proceedings. Judge Bailey wrote the lead opinion, joined by Judge Mathias, while Chief Judge Robb dissented in a separate opinion. No further details on the underlying facts or legal reasoning appear in the memorandum disposition.

family law

The case Reber v. State was an appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals from a trial court decision in a criminal matter. The appellate court issued an unpublished memorandum decision affirming the lower court's ruling. The three-judge panel reached this outcome without elaboration in the excerpt, with two judges concurring fully and one concurring only in the result.

criminal law