Title: Virginia Garwood and Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana, et al.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 31S01-1710-CT-647
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: October 11, 2017

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS  
 
 
 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES 
James D. Johnson 
 
 
 
 
 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Blair M. Gardner  
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Jackson Kelly PLLC  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evansville, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Frances Barrow  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 31S01-1710-CT-647 
 
VIRGINIA GARWOOD AND KRISTEN GARWOOD,   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellants (Plaintiffs below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA, ET AL.,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellees (Defendants below).  
 
 
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Harrison Circuit Court, No. 31C01-1105-CT-24 
The Honorable John T. Evans 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 31A01-1603-CT-679  
_________________________________ 
 
October 11, 2017 
 
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. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 11 2017, 11:33 am
 
2 
 
 
We grant transfer for the limited purpose of vacating only that section of the Court of 
Appeals opinion addressing subject matter jurisdiction.  We summarily affirm the remainder of 
the opinion.  See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).  In addressing jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals 
opinion cites Garwood v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 24 N.E.3d 548 (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.