After the Court of Appeals issued its published opinion that partially reversed the trial court’s judgment, Jennifer timely sought rehearing. While that request was pending, the trial court, on its own, issued a revised order to implement the Court of Appeals’ instructions. But the trial court lacked authority to issue that order because the appellate opinion was not yet certified. We thus take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of following Appellate Rule 65(E), which prohibits trial courts, administrative agencies, and parties from taking action based on published opinions or memorandum decisions (collectively “opinions”) before they are certified.
Supreme
Rosen v. Community Healthcare System d/b/a Community Hospital, No. 25S-CT-217, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 11, 2026).
Rosen argues we should vacate the judgment for the hospital for two reasons. First, she claims the hospital spoliated evidence, and she was unfairly prejudiced by the trial court unreasonably declining to remedy the spoliation. Second, she claims the trial court erred by sustaining the hospital’s objections to her introducing evidence that there was additional video footage that the hospital didn’t preserve. The hospital responds that each of these rulings reflects a reasonable judgment call within the trial court’s discretion. We agree with the hospital and analyze each issue in turn.
Shantel Waggoner, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Elmer Gordon Waggoner v. Anonymous Health System, Inc., et al., No. 26S-CT-17, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Mar. 4, 2026).
Providers are immune from liability under the state Healthcare Immunity Act and state Premises Immunity Act because Elmer’s treatment arose in response to the state disaster emergency for COVID-19. Likewise, Providers are also immune from liability under the federal PREP Act because Elmer’s death arose from use of a covered countermeasure, a ventilator, to treat COVID-19.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of A.D, No. 26S-MH-65, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 27, 2026).
Appellate courts will affirm a civil commitment if, considering only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting it, without weighing the evidence or assessing witness credibility, a reasonable trier of fact could find the necessary elements proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Indiana Land Trust #3082 and Omar and Haitham Abuzir as Trustees v. Hammond Redevelopment Commission et al., No. 25S-PL-141, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Feb. 24, 2026).
The Indiana Tort Claims Act establishes certain parameters to determine liability for negligent acts or omissions on the part of government employees and grants substantial immunity for conduct that falls within the scope of the employee’s employment.