Monday, August 23, 2010
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/23/10):
Thursday, August 26th
- 9:00 AM - Matter of Adoption of L.D. (49S02-1006-CV-330) - The Marion Superior Court granted an adoption petition filed by the child's paternal grandparents. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that notice to the mother by publication was sufficient. Matter of Adoption of L.D., 921 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB - Here is the 2/25/10 ILB summary of the COA opinion - 3rd case, quoting the Court:
In sum, Mother's contention that the Paternal Grandparents should have obtained her consent for the adoption is not properly before us, and we dismiss the appeal with respect to this issue. Further, Mother has not shown that service of process by publication in the Indianapolis Recorder was inadequate. Nor has N.E. shown that the adoption statute's failure to require that she, as a grandparent, receive notice of the adoption proceeding violates her due process rights in that a grandparent does not have a liberty interest in visitation with her grandchildren. And, finally, N.E. has not shown that she is entitled to visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act following entry of the Decree because the adoptive parents, Paternal Grandparents, were neither stepparents nor biologically related to L.D. before the adoption. As such, we affirm the trial court's order denying the motion to set aside the Decree.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/30/10):
Next Thursday, September 2nd
- 9:00 AM - Matthew Baugh v. State of Indiana (
18S04-1007-CR-398) - After Baugh was convicted of two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor, the Delaware Circuit Court found him to be a sexually violent predator. On appeal, Baugh argued that the process the trial court followed in making the finding did not comply with statutory requirements. The Court of Appeals held this argument had been procedurally defaulted because Baugh did not raise the issue in the trial court, and rejected Baugh's other arguments. Baugh v. State, 926 N.E.2d 497 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 2-1, 5/2/10 COA opinion - ILB summary here. Judge Darden's dissent concludes in part:
How could a constitutionally competent attorney allow his client to suffer the consequences that befell Baugh without advising him of the statutorily required hearing, at which he could subject the experts' conclusions to the crucible of cross-examination?
- 9:45 AM - David Hopper v. State of Indiana (13S01-1007-PC-399) - The Crawford Circuit Court rejected Hopper's post-conviction claim that he had not knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before pleading guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor. The Court of Appeals reversed in Hopper v. State, 925 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a 4/28/10 COA opinion (ILB Summary here):
David Hopper appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief (“PCR petition”), which challenged his conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated (“OWI”). We reverse and remand. The sole issue is whether the post-conviction court properly concluded that Hopper knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before pleading guilty to the OWI charge.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/23/10):
Wednesday, August 25th
- 10:00 AM - SPCP Group, LLC v. Dolson, Inc., et al (19A01-0912-CV-604) - RSPCP Group, LLC appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for partial summary judgment and granting defendant Earlene Holland's cross-motion for summary judgment on SPCP's complaint seeking foreclosure of a mortgage on Holland's real property. SPCP argues that the undisputed facts establish the mortgage is valid and enforceable and that the trial court erred by determining otherwise as a matter of law. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Kirsch and Robb. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - K.B. v. S.M. (45A04-1001-JP-14) - K.B. ("Putative Father") appeals the trial court's order that granted the motion filed by S.M. ("Mother") to dismiss his petition to establish paternity in Mother's child R.W.M. ("the child") based on the doctrine of laches. Putative Father contends that the doctrine of laches does not apply to child support cases and, therefore, the doctrine also does not apply to paternity actions, which necessarily include child support orders. Next he argues that laches is a question of fact and therefore the trial court erred by dismissing his petition without first holding an evidentiary hearing. And he further asserts that the lack of an evidentiary hearing deprived him of his right to due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Finally, Putative Father argues that public policy dictates that his petition to establish paternity should not be dismissed. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Vaidik and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:30 PM - - Ritzert Company, Inc., et al v. Tyme Properties, LLC, et al (82A04-1001-PL-35) - Ritzert Co., Inc., Electrical Maintenance & Construction, Inc., O'Daniel Trucking Co., Inc. and C.W. Lewis Steel Erection, Inc. (collectively "Ritzert") appeal the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Tyme Properties, LLC, Specialty Contracting Consultants, Inc., United Fidelity Bank, FSB, and Warehousing, Inc. on Ritzert's second amended complaint seeking to foreclose on a mechanics lien. Ritzert presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it concluded that no genuine issue of material fact exists precluding summary judgment on the issue of unjust enrichment in this matter. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/30/10):
Tuesday, August 31st
- 1:00 PM - William Long vs. State of Indiana ( 41A04-0912-CR-743) - William Long appeals his conviction for theft, as a Class D felony. Long presents a single issue for our review on appeal, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. In particular, Long contends that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he exercised unauthorized control over items found in a furnished apartment he possessed pursuant to a lease to buy contract. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:30 PM - Steven L. Beckham, et al vs. Lafayette Bank & Trust (79A05-0909-CV-554) - L. Steven Beckham, Jacquelyn K. Beckham, and Amos Agri Products, Inc. appeal the trial court's judgment in favor of Lafayette Bank and Trust Company on the Bank's complaint seeking to foreclose on certain real property. The Appellants present the following issues for our review on appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence supporting the Appellants' allegations fraud and mistake; whether the trial court erred when it relied on excluded evidence to support its findings and conclusions; whether an affidavit submitted into evidence by Lafayette Bank was defective; whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to order foreclosure regarding real estate located in another county; and whether the mortgages underlying the foreclosure action were defective for lack of consideration and inadequate description of the debt they secured. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Baker, Judges Najam and Mathias. [Where: 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.
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 August 23, 2010 06:00 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments