Monday, June 06, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/6/11):
- None currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/13/11):
Wednesday, June 15th
- 9:00 AM - Amir H. Sanjari v. State of Indiana (20S03-1105-CR-268) - A jury found Sanjari guilty of failing to pay support for his two children. The Elkhart Superior Court entered judgment on two convictions, and sentenced Sanjari to two consecutive five-year terms. The Court of Appeals vacated one of the convictions on double jeopardy grounds, but otherwise affirmed in Sanjari v. State, 942 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), vacated. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: A Feb. 11, 2011 COA opinion. Transfer was granted to the Appellee, and denied to the Appellant. The COA concluded its opinion: "In sum, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in determining that Sanjari had waived his right to be present at trial and in denying his October 29, 2009 motion for continuance. We vacate his conviction and sentence on Count II due to double jeopardy constraints and affirm his conviction and five-year sentence on Count I, with fines, costs, and restitution."
- 9:45 AM - D.R. v. Review Board (93S02-1105-EX-285) - D.R. was hired to be a truck driver, contingent on her passing the employer’s driving test. She did not pass the test and her employment ended. The Unemployment Insurance Review Board denied unemployment benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed in D.R. v. Review Bd., 942 N.E.2d 820 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a Dec. 22, 2010 COA opinion (that was initially NFP but reclassified). "D.R. raises one issue, which we revise and restate as whether the record supports the Board’s decision to deny D.R. full unemployment benefits. We affirm."
- 10:30 AM - Antoine Hill v. State of Indiana (45S03-1105-PC-283) - Hill pleaded guilty, and later, the Lake Superior Court denied him permission for a Post-Conviction Rule 2 belated appeal. His lawyer did not initiate an appeal from this “PC-2 Order.” Hill’s subsequent post-conviction claim that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel was denied by the Lake Superior Court. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions for the post-conviction court to grant Hill’s post-conviction petition so that he could appeal the PC-2 Order. Hill v. State, slip op., (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a Feb. 17, 2011 NFP opinion where the State is appealing the COA reversal of the denial of Hill's petition for post-conviction relief "which alleged he was denied the effective assistance of post-conviction counsel when counsel failed to timely appeal the denial of his prior petition to file a belated direct appeal challenging his sentence."
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 6/6/11):
Wednesday, June 8th
- 11:00 AM - Jacqueline Wisner, M.D. and The South Bend Clinic, LLP v. Archie L. Laney (71A03-1007-CT-382) - Archie L. Laney ("Appellee") filed suit against Jacqueline Wisner, M.D., and The South Bend Clinic (collectively "Appellants") alleging, inter alia, medical negligence for their failure to diagnose and treat an initial transient stroke, after which Appellee suffered a second, more severe stroke. After a jury verdict in favor of Appellee, and the trial court's entry of a judgment in the amount of $1,250,000.00, Appellants filed a motion to correct error wherein they sought a new trial amid allegations of the following: (1) "unprofessional and prejudicial conduct" of opposing counsel; (2) "irrelevant, improper and unfairly prejudicial closing arguments" by opposing counsel; (3) violation of the trial court's separation of witnesses order; and (4) violation of the trial court's order in limine during voir dire. This appeal ensued, following the trial court's denial of Appellants' motion to correct error. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Darden, and Barnes. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next Tuesday, June 14th
- 11:00 AM - Travelers Casualty & Surety, et al, vs. Maplehurst Farms, et al (49A04-1006-PL-394) - An insurance contract dispute between Maplehurst Farms and various insurers resolving an environmental dispute and costs. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May, and, Bradford. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next Wednesday, June 15th
- 2:00 PM - James R. Bellamy v. State of Indiana (49A02-1011-CR-1214) - Appellant-Defendant James Bellamy appeals the trial court's determination that he acted in direct contempt of the trial court by arriving fifty-four minutes late for his scheduled bench trial after the trial court had previously warned Bellamy that he would be found in contempt if he again failed to arrive for court proceedings in a timely fashion. Specifically, Bellamy contends that the trial court erred in finding him in direct contempt because, as a lay person, he could not be found in direct contempt merely for failing to timely appear at court proceedings. Bellamy alternatively claims that even if he could be found in direct contempt, the trial court's order is erroneous because he was not granted the opportunity to be heard to explain his tardiness. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May, and Bradford. [Where: Trine University, One University Avenue, University Center (Fabiani Theater), Angola, Indiana]
- 2:30 PM - Kerwin and Heather Masten vs. AMCO Insurance Company (49A02-1009-CT-998) - Kerwin Masten was injured in a four-car accident. He and his wife settled their claim with one of the drivers, Alice Derin Hanson, and sought compensation for their remaining damages pursuant to the underinsured motorist endorsement in the Mastens' insurance policy with AMCO Insurance Co. AMCO sought summary judgment, alleging that the Mastens' settlement with Hanson constituted a full set-off of its liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AMCO, and the Mastens now appeal, arguing that compensation from Hanson cannot set-off AMCO's liability because Hanson was not an underinsured driver. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Riley and Barnes. [Where: Supreme Court 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 June 6, 2011 08:07 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments