Trial court abused its discretion by admitting a juvenile’s statements into evidence without a valid waiver of right. An adverse interest may arise if the evidence shows an adult waives the juvenile’s rights but stands to personally benefit from the waiver to the child’s detriment.
Supreme
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.”
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.