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.
Supreme
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.
Jennings v. Smiley, No. 24S-CT-186, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 24, 2025).
The party seeking production of a smartphone must provide some evidence of the device’s use at a time when it could have been a contributing cause of the incident litigated and must describe the data sought with reasonable particularity.