Lovings, 805 N.E.2d at 447. See also West v. Wadlington, 908 N.E.2d 1157, 1167 (Ind. App. 2009) (holding that a trier of fact reasonably could infer that statement about the plaintiff "at-tack[ing]" the pastor and his family could have imputed a physical attack and, therefore, criminal conduct); Glasscock v. Corliss, 823 N.E.2d 748, 753 (Ind. App. 2005) (citing Lovings, 805 N.E.2d at 447); Cochran v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 372 N.E.2d 1211, 1217 (Ind. App. 1978) ("In determining whether a defamatory meaning is possible, the test is the effect which the article is fairly calculated to produce and impression it would naturally engender in the mind of the average person."). Again, Shepard's failure to set forth the statements Mikulich made defeats his claim for defamation. Shepard cannot rely on the single allegation in his complaint without demonstrating that some evidence exists which may establish that Mikulich made false, derogatory statements to others about Shepard.

Id. See alsoWest v. Wadlington, 908 N.E.2d 1157, 1167 (Ind. App. 2009) (holding that a trier of fact reasonably could infer that statement about the plaintiff "attack[ing]" the pastor and his family could have imputed a physical attack and, therefore, criminal conduct); Glasscock v.Corliss, 823 N.E.2d 748, 753 (Ind. App. 2005) ( citingLovings and stating same); Cochran v.IndianapolisNewspapers, Inc., 372 N.E.2d 1211, 1217 (Ind. App. 1978) ("In determining whether a defamatory meaning is possible, the test is the effect which the article is fairly calculated to produce and impression it would naturally engender in the mind of the average person."). Communications are considered defamatory per se when they impute criminal conduct, a loathsome disease, misconduct in a person's trade, profession, office, or occupation, or sexual misconduct to the plaintiff.

The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to all Defendants. On review, addressing the merits of Defendants' excessive entanglement claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court. West v. Wadlington, 908 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009). We now grant transfer thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

Without more, Reverend Snyder has not established that they were acting in their individual capacities. Reverend Snyder relies entirely on our decision in West v. Wadlington, 908 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009). As the Appellants point out, however, that opinion was vacated on September 22, 2010, when our supreme court granted transfer and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Without more, Reverend Snyder has not established that they were acting in their individual capacities. Reverend Snyder relies entirely on our decision in West v. Wadlington, 908 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). As the Appellants point out, however, that opinion was vacated on September 22, 2010, when our supreme court granted transfer and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.