Monday, February 22, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 2/22/10):
Thursday, February 25th
- 9:00 AM - In re: ITT Derivative Litigation - Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in Case Number 07-CV-2878 (CS), certified the following question of Indiana state law for the Indiana Supreme Court's consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on November 24, 2009:
What standard should be applied in determining whether a director is "disinterested" within the meaning of Indiana Code § 23-1-32-4(d), and more specifically, is it the same standard as is used in determining whether a director is disinterested for purposes of excusing demand on the corporation's directors under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and Rales v. Blasvand, 634 A.2d 927, 936 (Del. 1993).
- 9:45 AM - Larry Storie v. Randy's Auto Sales, LLC - Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Case Number 09-1675, certified the following question of Indiana state law for the Indiana Supreme Court's consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on January 21, 2010:
Is an entity that purchases and later sells a wrecked vehicle is required to apply for a salvage title under Ind. Code § 9-22-3-11(e) when it no longer owns the vehicle upon receipt of the certificate of title?
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 3/1/10):
Next Thursday, March 4th
- 9:00 AM - League of Women Voters, et al. v. Todd Rokita (49S02-1001-CV-50) - The League of Women Voters sued Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita and sought a declaration that Indiana's Voter Identification Law violates the Indiana Constitution, but the Marion Superior Court found the League's claims to be without merit and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, instructing the trial court to declare the Law void. League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita, 915 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2009), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted each side's petition to transfer, thus vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
[For background in this case of national interest, start with this ILB entry from Nov. 18, 2009.]
- 10:05 AM - Suzanne Eads v. Community Hospital (45S03-1001-CV-33) - Less than two years after she was injured while exiting the hospital following treatment for an ankle injury, Eads filed negligence action against the hospital that the trial court later determined was a claim subject to the Medical Malpractice Act. More than two years after her injury, and shortly before her original negligence complaint was dismissed, Eads filed a proposed complaint with the Department of Insurance. The trial court held that Eads’s malpractice claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Journey’s Account Statute did not apply to preserve Eads’s action. Eads v. Community Hospital, 909 N.E.2d 1009 (Ind. Ct. App. July 23, 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 2-1 opinion]
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 2/22/10):
Thursday, February 25th
- 3:00 PM - Ben and Shona Erwin v. Brenda Roe (16A01-0906-CV-312 ) - Ben and Shona Erwin allege that while tenants of Brenda Roe, their two-and-a-half year old son was exposed to dangerous, hazardous, and illegal levels of lead-based paint, plaster, and other materials in their rented home when he ate paint chips from the windowsill in his bedroom. The Erwin's complain that as a result of the paint their son ingested, he has been diagnosed with lead poisoning, and that Roe knew or should have known about the lead-based paint and that she failed to properly maintain the property Issues: 1) Whether the trial court erred in granting Roe's motion for summary judgment; 2) Whether Roe was negligent per se when she violated both state and federal statutes that protect children from damages caused by lead paint; 3) Whether Roe failed to properly maintain and repair the property; and 4) Whether Roe had actual knowledge of the lead paint and failed to fix the problem, or notify the Erwin's of the danger, giving rise to a separate and additional claim for relief under federal statutes. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Kirsch and Robb. [Where: Goodrich Room of the Lilly Library, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Indiana]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/1/10):
Next Tuesday, March 2nd
- 10:30 AM - Alberto Ruiz v. State of Indiana (49A05-0906-CR-356) - Alberto Ruiz confessed to child molesting and his counsel wanted to present expert testimony by a clinical psychologist about coerced or false confessions. The State asked the trial court not to allow the witness to testify, and the trial court excluded the witness on the grounds the testimony would not help the jury resolve any disputed facts, and would likely confuse the issues, mislead the jury, or unfairly prejudice the State. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges May, Crone and Brown. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next Wednesday, March 3rd
- 1:30 PM - Howard Regional Health System, et al v. Jacob & Lisa Gordon (34A02-0902-CV-179) - Gordon sued the hospital and doctors for medical malpractice related to a child's birth. Eighteen months later, the hospital indicated it had lost much of the required evidence. Hence, Gordon attempts to recover from the hospital for spoliation of evidence. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Darden and May. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next Thursday, March 4th
- 9:00 AM - Theotis Tolliver v. State of Indiana (45A03-0906-CR-250 ) - Appellant-Defendant Theotis Tolliver appeals his conviction, following a jury trial for Murder, and the finding that he is a Habitual Offender. On appeal, Tolliver challenges his conviction and habitual offender status by claiming the trial court erred on the following grounds; (1) by denying his motion for a continuance when a defense witness failed to appear at trial; (2) by permitting a police officer to testify regarding the truthfulness of the victim; (3) by prohibiting defense counsel from inquiring into certain State's witnesses' possible bias or ulterior motives on cross-examination; and (4) by allowing into evidence certain victim statements as statements against interest pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 804(b)(3). The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Darden, Bradford and Brown. [Where: Pike High School, Indianapolis, Indiana]
Next Friday, March 5th
- 12:00 PM - Franklin Electric Company, Inc. v. Lutheran Hospital, et al (02A04-0907-CV-381 ) - At his birth, J.K. and his mother incurred expenses for medical care provided by Lutheran Hospital of Indiana and Bluffton Regional Medical Center. J.K.'s mother was eligible for reimbursement of covered claims through the medical insurance plan offered by her employer, Franklin Electric Company, Inc. J.K.'s father was eligible for reimbursement of J.K.'s covered claims through his employer, the City of Fort Wayne. The two insurance plans have provisions for coordination of benefits ("COB") with other plans. In a declaratory judgment action brought by Lutheran and Bluffton to resolve a dispute over which plan covered J.K.'s expenses, the Allen Superior Court determined Franklin is primarily responsible for J.K.'s medical expenses and therefore granted the City's motion for summary judgment and denied Franklin's motion for summary judgment. Franklin appeals, contending the Allen Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and even if it had jurisdiction, it erred in entering judgment for the City because the COB provisions of the two plans were not properly applied. Lutheran and Bluffton cross-appeal, contending the Allen Superior Court erred in denying their motion for assessment of attorney fees against Franklin. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb and Bradford. [Where: Culver Cove Resort and Conference Center, 319 East Jefferson, Culver Cove, Indiana]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast.
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
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 February 22, 2010 06:00 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments