Venue statutes do not remove or alter a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, which is separate and distinct from a trial court’s consideration of prudential matters.
Civil
Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC v. Nagireddy, No. 24S-PL-287, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 19, 2025).
Trial court’s injunction was improper because the plaintiff did not prove they are likely to win their public-nuisance claim alleging defendant’s proposed land use violates the city’s unified development ordinance.
Calvary Temple Church of Evansville, Inc. v. Kirsch, No. 24S-CT-378, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 11, 2025).
For church premises liability, “premises” includes the whole parcel of land, and the church has limited premises liability so long as the parcel is “owned, operated, or controlled by the nonprofit religious organization and used primarily for worship services.”
Automotive Finance Corp. v. Liu, No. 24S-CC-223, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 23, 2025).
Trial court could not use Trial Rule 60(B)(3) to grant relief on grounds that the defendant could have raised in a motion to correct error.
Waggoner v. Anonymous Healthcare System, Inc., No. 24A-CT-469, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 23, 2025).
In a medical malpractice case, trial court could not address whether healthcare provider was statutorily immune from liability as a preliminary question of law.