Virginia Garwood and Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana

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
______________________________________________________________________________
FILED
In the Oct 11 2017, 11:33 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax 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.
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.
2