Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Taylor Routh v. Bernard Kappe
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-05-07
Taylor Routh sued Joseph Bernard and various government defendants, including the State of Indiana and INDOT, after a motor-vehicle collision at the intersection of State Road 32 and Ohio Avenue in Muncie, alleging that the absence of a traffic signal contributed to the crash. The State Parties moved for summary judgment on grounds of immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed them, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. INDOT had conducted a 2017 engineering study pursuant to the Indiana Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices that found the intersection met none of the nine signal warrants, leading it to remove the existing signal and install a stop sign; after later crash data prompted further review, INDOT began planning a roundabout instead. The court held that these choices were discretionary, policy-oriented decisions shielded by statutory immunity because they involved weighing traffic studies, safety factors, and alternatives rather than ministerial acts.
torts & liability
Roy C. Robinson v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-04-23
Roy C. Robinson was convicted by a jury of two counts of Level 1 felony rape, Level 1 felony attempted rape, Level 3 felony kidnapping, Level 3 felony criminal confinement, and several Level 6 felonies after abducting K.F. in Indianapolis, forcing her to engage in sexual acts, and later fleeing police, which resulted in a crash injuring two others; he also admitted to being a habitual offender and received an aggregate 44-year sentence. On appeal after remand from the Indiana Supreme Court, Robinson argued that the trial court committed fundamental error by not instructing the jury that it must unanimously agree on the specific acts supporting each rape charge and that his two Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement convictions violated Indiana’s prohibition on substantive double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals affirmed the rape and most other convictions, finding no fundamental error on the jury-instruction claim, but reversed in part by vacating one of the resisting convictions. It reasoned that the two resisting counts arose from a single continuous episode of flight in one location and time frame, making separate convictions improper under double-jeopardy principles, and remanded for the trial court to vacate one of those convictions while leaving the remainder of the judgment intact.
criminal lawprocedure
Justin Gordon v. Terex Corporation
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-04-07
Justin Gordon and Kierston Cates sued Terex Corporation and related companies, along with the equipment rental company, alleging negligence, products liability, and gross negligence after Gordon was severely injured when a rented boom lift he was operating contacted a power line on February 13, 2023. They filed their pro se complaint in Pike County just 21 minutes before the two-year statute of limitations expired but did not submit or request issuance of summonses as required by Indiana Trial Rule 3. After the defendants moved to dismiss with prejudice under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) on statute-of-limitations grounds, the plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Trial Rule 41(A)(1), but the trial court denied their motion and granted the defendants' motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the action was never timely commenced because summonses were not issued before the limitations period expired, so the complaint on its face showed the claims were time-barred and failed to state a claim for relief.
proceduretorts & liability
Gordon S. Nesbit Revocable Trust v. Robert Jason Hendrickson
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-04-07
The case involved a boundary dispute between the Gordon S. Nesbit Revocable Trust and Robert Jason Hendrickson over adjoining parcels in Monroe County, Indiana, where the parties disagreed on the location of their shared property line and the ownership of a roughly 3.22-acre strip of land. After a bench trial, the trial court ruled for Hendrickson on his counterclaim to quiet title, and the Trust appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence supported Hendrickson’s proposed boundary line as the true line under original survey doctrine. The court reasoned that a 2023 survey by Deckard correctly identified the section centerline based on historical monuments, fences, and trace evidence, while earlier surveys by Graham were flawed retracements that failed to meet minimum standards and improperly disregarded relevant physical indicators. The 1974 deed had transferred the entire east half of the northwest quarter, rendering subsequent attempts to convey part of that land ineffective.
property
John Merchant v. Katz Sapper & Miller LLP
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-03-17
John Merchant, a former co-owner of Indiana Illinois Iowa Boxcar, LLC (“iCube”), sued the accounting firm Katz Sapper & Miller (KSM) for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty after selling his interest in the company. He alleged that KSM, which handled accounting for iCube and related entities, failed to disclose that iCube’s other owners had made undisclosed loans to another company they controlled. KSM moved to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6), arguing it had never provided services to Merchant personally and therefore owed him no duty. The trial court granted the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Indiana law does not impose a duty on an accountant to a non-client individual even when the accountant served the company in which the individual held an ownership interest.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Dimanione Lovelace v. State of Indiana
Indiana Court of Appeals · 2026-02-27
Dimanione Lovelace was charged in Tippecanoe County with felony murder and related offenses stemming from a series of armed robberies in Howard, Grant, and Tippecanoe Counties that culminated in the shooting death of Anthony Holdbrook during a purported firearms transaction. The trial court convicted him of felony murder, two Level 5 felony conspiracy-to-commit-robbery counts, and a firearm enhancement, then imposed an aggregate seventy-two-year sentence with eight years suspended. On appeal, Lovelace argued that the Howard and Grant County offenses should have been transferred, that evidence was insufficient to support the firearm enhancement, and that the trial court abused its discretion or imposed an inappropriate sentence given the nature of the offenses and his character. The Court of Appeals rejected each claim, holding that venue was proper, sufficient evidence supported the enhancement, the sentencing decision was within the trial court’s discretion, and the sentence was not inappropriate in light of Lovelace’s criminal history and the circumstances of the crimes. The court therefore affirmed the judgment in full.
criminal lawgunsprocedure