Monday, October 01, 2007
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court:
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that will be webcast:
This Monday, Oct. 1st:
10:00 AM - Smith and Wesson Corporation, et al v. Town of Gary, et al - The City of Gary filed a complaint against a number of manufacturers and distributors of handguns. The City alleged that the manufacturers negligently designed and distributed handguns and created a public nuisance in Gary by failing to take steps to prevent criminals from acquiring and misusing their products. The manufacturers filed a motion to dismiss the City's complaint or for judgment on the pleadings and argued that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA") required dismissal of the case. The trial court found that the PLCAA destroyed the City's cause of action but that the PLCAA was unconstitutional because it: violated the Due Process Clause, constituted an ex post facto law, and violated the separation of powers. On interlocutory appeal, the manufacturers argue that the PLCAA bars the City's lawsuit and that the PLCAA is constitutional. The City argues that the PLCAA does not provide a basis to dismiss this case and that the PLCAA is unconstitutional. The United States of America argues, as an intervenor, that the PLCAA is constitutional.
[For background on this case, see this Sept. 8, 2007 ILB entry, beginning at "And what of Indiana's Gary-based gun suit?"]
Webcasts will be available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that will NOT be webcast:
This Monday, Oct. 1st:
1:30 PM - Maverick Musser, by his next friends; Mischelle Musser and Michael Musser vs. Daniel A. Roby, David J. Stach and Roby & Hood Law Firm - Maverick Musser, by his parents and next friends, Mischelle and Michael Musser (the Mussers), brought a legal malpractice action against Daniel Roby, David Stach, and Roby & Hood Law Firm (the Law Firm). The Mussers based their claim, in relevant part, upon the Law Firm's failure to properly disclose expert medical witnesses in a federal medical malpractice suit, which resulted in the exclusion of said expert testimony and the grant of summary judgment in favor of their deceased son's medical providers. The Law Firm sought summary judgment on the basis that the Mussers were not injured by the Law Firm's failure to designate certain witnesses (two treating physicians and three nurses) as experts because the Mussers would not have survived summary judgment in the federal case even if said witnesses had been properly designated. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the Law Firm. The Mussers now appeal. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Friedlander and Crone.
This Wednesday, Oct. 3rd:
10:00 AM [at Sullivan High School, Sullivan, Indiana] - Jeffrey Douglas v. State of Indiana - Jeffrey Douglas pled guilty for failing to register as a sex offender, but challenges his sentence. In 1997, Douglas was convicted and sentenced for sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class C felony. Douglas initially registered as a sex offender and reported a Madison County address, but moved without notifying or providing local law enforcement with a forwarding address. On appeal, Douglas argues that as applied to him the statute requiring registration by sex offenders is an ex post facto law. Douglas contends that the registration requirement is an additional penalty that did not exist at the time of his conviction, because the statute was modified after he was convicted to include those who committed misconduct with a minor, as a Class C felony. Additionally, Douglas claims that his enhanced sentence violates both the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions and that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Bailey and Vaidik.
This Thurssday, Oct. 4th:
11:00 AM [at Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana] - State of Indiana vs. Rex David Delph - The State appeals from the trial court's dismissal of all charges against Rex David Delph, who was accused of setting his home on fire, resulting in the deaths of his wife and son. The State had charged Delph with two counts of murder, Class A felony arson, and two counts of felony murder. The trial court, however, dismissed all charges against Delph on the basis that the State had failed to bring him to trial in a timely fashion, thereby violating his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb and Bradford