Absent a contractual or statutory duty, a property owner is always justified in excluding another from the owner’s premises.
G. Slaughter
JWB v. State, No. 24S-CR-288, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2025).
Even if the recent amendments to Ind. Code 31-30-1-4(d) and 31-37-1-2 (the juvenile jurisdiction statutes), are remedial, the General Assembly did not intend to apply them retroactively to pending cases.
Tingley v. First Financial Bank, No. 24S-PL-299, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 25, 2025).
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.
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.”