Case Summary

John Merchant, a prior owner and co-manager of Indiana Illinois Iowa Boxcar, LLC (“iCube”), alleges misconduct by his former business partners R. Powell and Sandra Felix (“the Felixes”).  After selling his ownership interest in iCube to R. Powell, Merchant sued iCube and the Felixes.  Merchant also sued Katz, Sapper & Miller, LLC (“KSM”), which he claimed had provided accounting services to iCube, the Felixes, and another company called Indiana Boxcar Corporation (“IBC”).  KSM moved to dismiss Merchant’s claims against it, arguing that it had never provided accounting services to Merchant and, consequently, had never owed him a duty.  The trial court granted KSM’s motion, leading to this interlocutory appeal. 

On appeal, Merchant contends that the trial court erred in determining that KSM had not owed him a duty, while KSM contends that the trial court’s decision regarding its lack of duty to Merchant is correct.  Merchant, for his part, argues that because he was a member of iCube and iCube was KSM’s client, KSM owed him a duty.  KSM, on the other hand, argues that they only owed a duty to iCube and that this duty did not extend to Merchant.  KSM also requests appellate attorneys’ fees, arguing that Merchant’s appeal is frivolous and was brought in bad faith.

John Merchant v. Katz Sapper & Miller, LLP
When:TUE, MAR 3, 2026 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bradford
J. Weissmann
J. DeBoer
Case No:25A-PL-1713County:Marion

Case Summary

This argument takes place at 10:30 AM Local (Central) time, and 11:30 AM Eastern Time.

During an incident on Justin Gasaway’s front porch, Gasaway kicked Bryan Owen in the head and side and then stabbed him once in the back. While transporting Owen to the hospital, paramedics tended to his other injuries and didn’t notice the stab wound. The stab wound wasn’t discovered until Owen was at the hospital, where he later died. At Gasaway’s murder trial, the trial court excluded testimony from the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy that discovering the stab wound sooner would’ve increased Owen’s chances of survival. The jury found Gasaway guilty of murder and Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, and Gasaway admitted to being a habitual offender.

Gasaway now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the pathologist’s testimony and in admitting certain hearsay testimony, that the evidence is insufficient to prove he knowingly or intentionally killed Owen, and that the trial court made errors in its abstract of judgment.   

Justin C. Gasaway v. State of Indiana
When:TUE, MAR 3, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Tavitas
J. Scheele
Case No:25A-CR-1614Lower Case:84D05-2001-MR-98County:VigoLocation:Griffith High School

Case Summary

Plaintiff Martinez sued Defendant Linderwell for killing her dog, Douglas, and wounding her other dog, Tilly. Linderwell claimed the dogs were on his property one night and attacked his dog. He shot the dogs when they returned in a menacing fashion the next morning. Linderwell buried Douglas and Tilly returned home injured. Martinez asked the trial court for replacement costs for Douglas, the cost of the vet bills for Tilly, and the return of Douglas’ dog tags. Linderwell argued his actions were justified under Indiana’s Castle Doctrine, there was comparative fault due to Martinez’ failure to contain her dogs, there were no damages because Douglas had no monetary value, and he did not have possession of the dog tags. The trial court denied Martinez’ claim.  

 

On appeal, Martinez argues the trial court erred in its findings and Linderwell’s actions constitute conversion, criminal mischief, and/or trespass to chattels. Linderwell claims these arguments are waived because Martinez did not raise them in the trial court and he did not have the requisite mens rea for conversion or criminal mischief. He also asks for appellate attorney fees.

Martinez v. Linderwell
When:TUE, FEB 17, 2026 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Kenworthy
J. Felix
J. DeBoer
Case No:25A-SC-953County:WellsLocation:Ivy Tech Lafayette

Case Summary

In 2007, a Tennessee police officer approached Bruce Mendenhall’s semi-truck at a truck stop in Nashville and asked to talk to him about a case he was investigating. When Mendenhall opened his truck door, the officer observed blood and asked if he could search the truck. Mendenhall agreed, and the officer found blood-soaked women’s clothing. Mendenhall was taken into custody and interviewed, during which he stated that the blood was from a woman—later identified as Carmen Purpura—that he had picked up the night before at a truck stop in Indianapolis and that she had been shot in the head with his rifle (though he didn’t admit shooting her). Police in Indianapolis searched for Purpura’s body but never found it.

In 2008, Mendenhall was charged with murder in Marion County. The Indiana case was put on hold while Mendenhall was tried for other murders in Tennessee. In 2011, skeletal remains were found in Kentucky, which were identified as Purpura’s in 2016. Mendenhall’s Indiana trial was held in 2025, and he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 65 years, to be served consecutive to his life sentences in Tennessee. Mendenhall now appeals, arguing that Indiana did not have territorial jurisdiction, that Marion County was not the proper venue, and that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized from his truck because he was not given a Pirtle warning, which Indiana law requires, before he consented to the search in Tennessee.   

Bruce Mendenhall v. State of Indiana
When:FRI, FEB 13, 2026 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Altice
J. Vaidik
J. Bradford
Case No:25A-CR-00775Lower Case:49D27-0804-MR-77498County:MarionLocation:Supreme Court Courtroom

Case Summary

Pandel Ludwig fell on an icy sidewalk while leaving the fitness center at an apartment complex owned by Flaherty & Collins, Inc.  A few days later, Ludwig’s boyfriend suggested to the apartment’s office staff that security cameras may have recorded the fall.  An employee reviewed surveillance footage but determined cameras inside the fitness center did not capture the fall because their view of the door was blocked by exercise equipment.  Ludwig later sent a letter asking the apartment to preserve any video of the fall.  By the time the apartment received it, its security system had automatically deleted all footage from the day of the incident. 

 

At trial, Ludwig presented evidence that one camera had an unobstructed view of the sidewalk next to where she had fallen that wouldn’t have captured her fall but might have shown whether the apartment salted the sidewalk earlier in the day.  She argued that if so, the jury could “be pretty darn sure [the apartment] would keep” the footage.  Ludwig moved the trial court for a spoliation of evidence instruction, which the court rejected.  However, the court did not limit Ludwig from arguing spoliation during closing arguments.  The jury returned a verdict for the apartment, finding Ludwig 90% at fault for her injuries.  Ludwig moved for a new trial, which the court denied. 

 

On appeal, Ludwig contends the trial court erred in failing to give the spoliation instruction and that the way the jury completed the verdict form calls into question whether they understood the effect of their verdict.

Pandel Ludwig v. Flaherty & Collins, Inc.
When:THU, FEB 12, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Rescheduled from WED, JAN 14, 2026 at 1:30 PMCourt:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Bradford
J. Weissmann
J. DeBoer
Case No:25A-CT-941Lower Case:49D03-2303-CT-13118County:Marion

Case Summary

American Commercial Barge Line, LLC (ACBL) is an Indiana company that provides barge transportation services. Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 1861, Liberty International Underwriters, StarNet Insurance Company, Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, and XL Specialty Insurance Company (collectively, Appellants) are insurers that issued policies to ACBL. Barges owned by ACBL’s predecessor were cleaned by an entity known as SBA at a shipyard in Jennings, Louisiana. Many years later, environmental damage was discovered at the shipyard, and ACBL was named a potentially responsible party.
Thereafter, ACBL filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against the Appellants seeking a declaration that the Appellants must defend and indemnify ACBL under excess/umbrella liability policies Appellants sold ACBL to cover environmental liabilities. ACBL also sought damages arising from the Appellants’ failure to provide coverage for the liabilities alleged to have arisen from the barge cleaning process. ACBL moved for partial summary judgment on choice of law, and the Appellants
cross moved for summary judgment, asserting that ACBL’s claims are barred by language in the excess policies. The trial court granted ACBL’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Indiana law governs the excess policies. The court denied the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that ACBL’s claims are not barred. On appeal the Appellants contend that assuming Indiana law applies, under Indiana law the watercraft limitation provision precludes coverage for ACBL’s pollution liability, and the trial court erred when it entered partial summary judgment in favor of ACBL. Thus, the Appellants request entry of summary judgment in their favor. In the alternative, the Appellants assert that even if the trial court correctly applied Indiana law, the policies are maritime contracts governed by federal maritime law, which precludes coverage under the policies, and the trial court erred when it granted partial summary judgment for ACBL on the choice of law issue.

Starr Indemnity & Liability Insurance Company, et al. v. American Commercial Barge Line, LLC
When:WED, FEB 11, 2026 at 1:30 PM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Najam
J. Kenworthy
J. Scheele
Case No:25A-PL-1073Lower Case:49D01-2011-PL-40621County:Marion

Case Summary

This case presents a question of first impression concerning Indiana’s Special Fuel Tax, Indiana Code § 6-6-2.5: whether special fuel consumed on private roads qualifies for the "nonhighway purposes" exemption pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 6-6-2.5-28(a) and 6-6-2.5-30(a)(8).

United Parcel Service, Inc., (“UPS”) operates package delivery vehicles throughout Indiana that travel on both public highways and private property (private drives, parking lots, residential roadways and similar properties). Using data derived from telematics equipment attached to the vehicles, UPS calculated fuel consumed exclusively on private roads during 2018 and 2019 and filed refund claims for those years.

The Department of State Revenue (“DOR”) denied the claims, determining UPS did not meet the requirements for a refund under Indiana Code § 6-6-2.5-28 because it had not overcome the presumption that special fuel is “consumed for the purpose of propelling motor vehicles on a highway.” DOR Final Order Denying Refund at 6.

UPS filed a Petition for Original Tax Appeal, and the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment will now be argued.

United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue
When:TUE, FEB 10, 2026 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Tax CourtPanel:J. McAdam
Case No:24T-TA-00018County:MarionLocation:Court of Appeals Courtroom

Case Summary

Rodriguez Morgan was charged with murdering Tracy Harmon, with whom he shared four children and had known for decades, after his stepson claimed to have seen Morgan shoot her in the head.  Before trial, Morgan filed a motion in limine requesting that the court prohibit the State from admitting any evidence of prior domestic violence or threats of violence by Morgan against Harmon.  The court granted the motion in part and only allowed the State to elicit testimony from their daughter about Morgan’s recent threats to kill Harmon.  The jury returned a guilty verdict, but later informed the court that the daughter’s deposition, which had not been admitted into evidence, was sent back with the jurors in deliberations and considered by them in coming to their verdict.  That deposition included testimony indicating Morgan had a long history of violence toward Harmon, had threatened their daughter, abused alcohol, and always carried a gun.  The trial court denied Morgan’s motion for a mistrial.  Morgan now appeals, arguing the court erred in denying his motion.

Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana
When:MON, FEB 9, 2026 at 10:30 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Foley
J. Kenworthy
J. DeBoer
Case No:25A-CR-836Lower Case:49D07-2310-MR-30268County:MarionLocation:Indian Creek High School

Case Summary

Gregory Guilfoyle appeals his convictions and sentences for attempted murder and neglect of a dependent.  Guilfoyle shot his wife in the head and shot a law enforcement officer in the chest; he committed the latter shooting in front of his toddler.  At trial, Guilfoyle asserted that he was insane when he committed these offenses.  The jury found him guilty but mentally ill, and the trial court sentenced him to 100 years of incarceration.

Guilfoyle presents two issues on appeal.  First, Guilfoyle argues that he presented sufficient evidence to support his insanity defense such that he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.  Second, Guilfoyle claims his sentence is inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Gregory C. Guilfoyle v. State of Indiana
When:THU, FEB 5, 2026 at 11:00 AM
Court:Indiana Court of AppealsPanel:J. Vaidik
J. Tavitas
J. Felix
Case No:25A-CR-1406Lower Case:24C01-2405-F1-000269County:FranklinLocation:Indiana State University

Case Summary

Monroe pleaded guilty without an agreement to Count I, murder; Count II, murder in perpetration of robbery; and Count III, robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. The Porter Superior Court imposed an aggregate sentence of 72.5 years for Counts I and III. It did not enter judgment on Count II. Monroe appealed, arguing (1) the convictions violated double jeopardy, and (2) the trial court abused its sentencing discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Monroe v. State, No. 24A-CR-2812 (Ind. Ct. App. June 27, 2025) (mem.), trans. pending. Monroe has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over the appeal.

Jada Sha'nel Monroe v. State of Indiana
When:TUE, FEB 3, 2026 at 10:00 AM
Court:Indiana Supreme CourtPanel:J. Rush
J. Massa
J. Slaughter
J. Goff
J. Molter
Case No:24A-CR-02812Lower Case:64D01-2306-MR-005623County:Porter