Monday, August 31, 2009
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/31/09):
Thursday, September 3rd
- 9:00 AM - David A. Shotts v. State - Indiana police officers seized evidence from Shotts while executing an Alabama arrest warrant. The St. Joseph Superior Court admitted the evidence over Shotts’ objection. The Court of Appeals concluded the Alabama arrest warrant was deficient, and reversed in Shotts v. State, 907 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. March 12, 2009), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. [Here is the ILB summary of the opinion (3rd case).]
- 9:45 AM - State v. Michael Haldeman and State v. Rachel Lawson - Michael Haldeman and Rachel Lawson were each charged with one or more counts of conspiracy to deal methamphetamine, a Class B felony, based on evidence gathered pursuant to “intercept warrants” that allowed the police to place wiretaps on certain cellular and residential phone lines. Haldeman and Lawson moved to suppress the evidence because the police failed to seek appellate review of the intercept warrants as required by Indiana Criminal Rule 25(B). The Morgan Superior Court granted their motions to suppress, and the State appealed. While the appeal was pending, the State moved the Supreme Court to transfer jurisdiction from the Court of Appeals per Appellate Rule 56(A) and to consolidate Haldeman and Lawson’s appeals. The Supreme Court granted both motions, thereby assuming jurisdiction over the consolidated appeals. [Note: Appellate Rule 56(A) is the emergency transfer rule]
- 10:30 AM - Kyle Kiplinger v. State of Indiana - A jury found Kiplinger guilty of murder. In the penalty phase proceedings on the State’s request for a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, the jury found the State had proven the charged aggravating circumstance but was unable to reach a unanimous decision regarding sentencing. The Perry Circuit Court sentenced Kiplinger to life without parole, and in this direct appeal, Kiplinger argues the conviction and sentence should be reversed.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/7/09):
Next Friday, September 11th
- 9:00 AM - State v. Allan M. Schlechty - The Jay Superior Court granted Schlechty’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle by his probation officer. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a not-for-publication Memorandum Decision, State v. Schlechty (Ind. Ct. App. 2/12/2009). The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. [Here is the ILB summary of the 2-1 NFP opinion.]
- 9:45 AM - Eric P. Sibbing v. Amanda N. Cave - Cave filed a personal injury complaint against Sibbing in the Marion Superior Court. Sibbing admitted fault, but disputed damages. A jury returned a damages award for Cave. Sibbing appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding it did not appear the trial court erred in permitting Cave to testify concerning what a doctor told Cave about her condition and that regardless, any error in the admission of this testimony was harmless. The Court of Appeals also found no error in the exclusion of an expert's testimony that some treatment received by Cave was medically unnecessary. Sibbing v. Cave, 901 N.E.2d 1155 (Ind. Ct. App. 3/5/2009), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. [Note: Here is the ILB summary of the 2-1 COA opinion.]
- 10:30 AM - Joseph J. Reiswerg v. Pam Statom - In a legal malpractice action, Pam Statom sought partial summary judgment against her former attorney Joseph Reiswerg and the law firm of Cohen Garelick & Glazier. The trial court granted Statom's motion against Reiswerg but denied the motion against the firm. After Reiswerg and the firm subsequently filed motions for summary judgment, alleging Statom's claims were time-barred, Statom sought to strike those summary judgment motions. The trial court granted the motion to strike, finding Reiswerg and the firm had waived their statute-of-limitations defense by not raising it in opposition to Statom's partial summary judgment motion. The trial court also purported to enter final judgment in favor of Statom and against Reiswerg. On consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeals dismissed in part, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Reiswerg v. Statom, 897 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 12/5/2008), aff'd on reh'g, 901 N.E.2d 1168 (3/5/2009), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. [Here is the the ILB summary of Dec. 5, 2008 COA opinion and the March 5th ruling on the petition for rehearing. From the Dec. 5th opinion: "In this consolidated appeal, Joseph J. Reiswerg appeals the trial court’s grant of partial summary judgment to Pam Statom in her legal malpractice action, and both Reiswerg and Cohen Garelick & Glazier (“CGG”) appeal the trial court’s order striking their motions for summary judgment, which raised statute of limitations defenses." Note that Appellant Joseph J. Reiswerg's Petition for Transfer was GRANTED and Appellee Pam Statom's Petition for Transfer was DENIED.]
ALL Supreme Court oral arguments are videocast and accessible here, unless otherwise noted.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/31/09):
Tuesday, September 1st
- 2:00 PM - Kristy Humphrey, (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles Mandress, Jr., Deceased) vs. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., et al - Kristy Humphery, as personal representative for the Estate of Charles Mandrell, Jr., appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. ("Duke Energy"). Humphery alleged in her complaint that Duke Energy negligently placed a utility pole near an intersection in Johnson County, which proximately caused Mandrell's death. On appeal, the parties dispute the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Duke Energy could have reasonably foreseen Mandrell's collision with its utility pole. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Kirsch and Barnes. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom - WEBCAST] ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast.
- None currently scheduled.
NOTE: For a printable version of this list of upcoming oral arguments, click on the date in the next line. Then select "Print" from your browser.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 31, 2009 06:45 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments