Case ID: ne3d_84/html/0624-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Virginia GARWOOD and Kristen Garwood, Appellants (Plaintiffs below), v. STATE of Indiana, et al., Appellees (Defendants below).
    No. 31S01-1710-CT-647
    Supreme Court of Indiana.
    FILED October 11, 2017
    Attorneys for Appellants: James D. Johnson, Blair M. Gardner, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Evansville, Indiana
    Attorney for Appellees: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana,- Frances Barrow, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
   Per Curiam.

Following a jury trial and the entry of judgment against one defendant, Virginia and Kristen Garwood appealed and the defendant cross-appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. See Garwood v. State, 77 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). The Garwoods petition to transfer.

We grant transfer for the limited purpose of vacating only that section of the Court of Appeals opinion addressing subject matter jurisdiction. Wé summarily affirm the remainder of the opinion. See Ind. Appellate Rule 68(A)(2). In addressing jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals opinion cites Garwood v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 24 N.E.3d 648 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014), but that opinion was vacated by our “Published Order” issued February 8, 2016. Due to a clerical error, our Published Order was not sent to Thomson Reuters at that time. Therefore, when the Court of Appeals issued its opinion, the Published Order was not reported in the Northeastern Reporters or.on Westlaw, which has since been corrected. See Garwood v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 79 N.E.3d 903 (Ind. 2016). The. Published Order resolved the issue of subject matter jurisdiction based on the parties’ representations at oral argument.

All Justices concur.