Opinion ID: 2641133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a trial court’s entry of summary judgment under the same standard as the trial court, and affirm “only where the evidence shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343, 346 (Ind. 2001). We look only to the materials properly designated to the trial court, and we take all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id. Specific findings or conclusions made in the summary-judgment order help our review by giving insight into the trial court’s rationale, but they do not change our standard of review. Rice v. Strunk, 670 N.E.2d 1280, 1283 (Ind. 1996). Nor does the trial court’s decision to adopt a party’s proposed order verbatim affect our review (though we do not encourage that practice). Carpenter v. Carpenter, 891 N.E.2d 587, 592–93 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In either event, our review of summary judgment is de novo, Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, 913 N.E.2d 193, 196 (Ind. 2009), and we apply that standard carefully to ensure that a litigant is not improperly denied a day in court, Tom-Wat, 741 N.E.2d at 346. 4