• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

Poore v. Indianapolis Public Schools No. 21S-CT-105, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., March 18, 2021).

March 22, 2021 Filed Under: Civil Tagged With: Per Curiam, Supreme

Per curiam
The trial court entered judgment in favor of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) on the Poores’ claims for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act after IPS refused to pay for their son’s advanced math class at Butler University. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Poore v. Indianapolis Public Schools, 155 N.E.3d 643, 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). The Poores sought transfer, joined by the State of Indiana as amicus curiae.
The Poores, IPS, and the State agree that the opinion contains an incorrect statement: that International Baccalaureate (IB) courses satisfy the requirements of the Dual Credit Statute, Indiana Code section 20-30- 10-4. The Poores also challenge the Court of Appeals’ broader conclusion that IPS was not negligent because it complied with its duty to provide J.P. with dual credit classes.
The Poores’ negligence claim in the trial court was premised on IPS’s duty to provide their son with the classes necessary to graduate with a Core 40 Academic Honors Diploma—a duty the Poores concede that IPS fulfilled. Appellants’ Third Am. Br. at 20-21. They therefore waived the more specific claim that IPS was negligent for failing to satisfy the Dual Credit Statute. See Collins Asset Group, LLC v. Alialy, 139 N.E.3d 712, 714-15 (Ind. 2020). Accordingly, we grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion but for Section II, 155 N.E.3d at 650-51, which we vacate. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). And while we agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that “IPS was not negligent,” 155 N.E.3d at 655, we vacate its stated reasoning. Judgment in IPS’s favor is warranted not “because [it] did not deny J.P. the benefit of early college credits,” but because IPS fulfilled the duty the Poores claimed it breached and the Poores otherwise waived their Dual Credit Statute argument. Id
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.
 

Read the full opinion

If the link to the opinion in this case isn’t available above, you can search for it at public.courts.in.gov/decisions

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs