« Ind. Courts - "Courtenay Scott case could decide Democrat nominee" in Vigo court race | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decides one Indiana case »

Monday, May 05, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week

This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court:

This Wednesday, May 7th:

9:00 AM - Marla Young v. Timothy Young - The Cass Circuit Court entered an order establishing a father's child support obligation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, addressing several factors affecting the support calculation, including the father's periodic payments to mother, business depreciation, credit for evening visitation, and determining the mother's income. See Young v. Young, 881 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2007), vacated. [See ILB summary here - 4th case.] The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. Attorney for Young; Jim Brugh of Logansport, IN. Attorney for Young; Derick Steele of Kokomo, IN.

9:45 AM - State of Indiana v. Michael A. Cozart - Cozart pleaded guilty in 2004 before being advised that his prior felony convictions meant the trial court was without discretion to suspend any portion of the minimum sentence; Cozart was not allowed to withdraw his plea. In post-conviction proceedings, the Floyd Superior Court granted Cozart relief. A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds the trial court failed to properly advise Cozart in State v. Cozart, 878 N.E.2d 393 (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 26, 2007), vacated. [See ILB summary here - 3rd case.] The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case, thus vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. Attorney for State: Cynthia L. Ploughe, Indianapolis, IN. Attorney for Cozart: Michael A. Gillenwater, Jeffersonville, IN.

Webcasts will be available here.

This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that will be webcast:

None scheduled.

This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals that will NOT be webcast:

This Wednesday, May 7th:

10:00 AM - Olympus Properties v. Jason Plotzker - Jason Plotzker had been robbed at knifepoint at his former apartment and had post-traumatic stress disorder, so he leased an apartment from Olympus at the Mercury Building because of its security features. Less than two weeks before he was to move in, Olympus terminated the lease, claiming Plotzker had breached a prior lease. Plotzker couldn't find an alternative apartment that met his needs and sought "emergency possession" alleging he would have to withdraw from Indiana University if he could not get the Mercury apartment. He was awarded possession and attorney fees. Olympus argues on appeal Plotzker was not entitled to emergency possession because he was not yet a "tenant" of the Mercury and did not have "immediate injury" as contemplated by statute. It also argues he offered no evidence his attorney fees were reasonable. The scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Riley and May. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom]

This Thursday, May 8th:

10:00 AM - In The Matter of the Adoption of D.C. - Appellant-Respondent H.R., who is the biological mother of D.C., appeals the trial court's denial of her Motion to Set Aside Decree of Adoption. Upon appeal, H.R. challenges the trial court's order by claiming that the adoption decree is void for insufficient service of process. In making this claim, H.R. argues that Appellee-Petitioner R.C., who is the adoptive mother of D.C., failed to comply with Indiana Trial Rules governing service of process and that this allegedly invalid service of process violated H.R.'s due process rights. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Barnes, Crone and Bradford. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom]

12:00 PM - James A. Kohlmeyer v. Second Injury Fund - Appellant appeals from the decision of the Full Worker's Compensation Board denying him benefits from the Second Injury Fund. Appellant maintains that, pursuant to a liberal interpretation favoring the employee of I.C. 22-3-3-13(h), his receipt of Social Security benefits should be added to disability payments from his employer for purposes of exhausting the maximum worker's compensation disability benefits, thus, entitling him to benefits from the Fund. Appellant also argues that he was entitled to benefits from the Fund pursuant to the express terms of a stipulation approved by the Board at the conclusion of the initial proceedings under the Worker's Compensation Act. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Robb and Mathias. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom]

Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 5, 2008 06:41 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments