Monday, September 26, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/26/11):
Wednesday, September 28th
- 9:00 AM - Indiana Department of Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (49S10-1107-TA-417) -
The Department of State Revenue denied UPS’s claim for a corporate income tax refund for tax year 2000 and assessed UPS with additional tax liability for tax year 2001. On UPS’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to UPS. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0704-TA-24 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010). The Supreme Court has granted a petition for review.
ILB: This was a Dec. 30, 2010 opinion by Judge Fisher, where the issue was: "whether, during the years at issue, UPS properly excluded from its Indiana corporate income tax returns the income of two of its affiliates because they were “subject to” the gross premium privilege tax (premiums tax) under Indiana Code § 27-1-18-2." The Tax Court reversed the DOR's "denial of UPS's claim for refund of corporate income tax for 2000 and its assessment of additional corporate income tax against UPS for 2001."
- 9:45 AM - Indiana Department of Revenue v. AOL, LLC (49S10-1108-TA-514) - The Department of State Revenue denied AOL’s claim for a refund for use tax paid on its in-state use of certain promotional materials sent to prospective and existing customers. On AOL’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to AOL. AOL, LLC v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, No. 49T10-0903-TA-7 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010). The Supreme Court has granted a petition for review.
ILB: This was a Dec. 29, 2010 Tax Court NFP opinion that concluded: "Therefore, the Department’s final determinations, denying AOL’s two claims for refund are REVERSED. The Department is ordered to refund to AOL the use taxes it paid during the tax periods at issue."
- 10:30 AM - Troy R. Smith v. State of Indiana (35S02-1106-CR-369) - Smith pleaded guilty to non-support of a dependent child, and was placed on probation. Later, the Huntington Superior Court revoked probation when Smith did not continue paying the full amount of support. The Court of Appeals reversed on grounds the State had not proved Smith’s ability to pay and the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation in full. Smith v. State, 945 N.E.2d 740 (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 was a March 23, 2011 COA opinion.
Thursday, September 29th
- 9:00 AM - Sheila Perdue, et al. v. Michael Gargano, et al. (49S02-1107-PL-437) - Plaintiffs brought a class action against FSSA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the administration of Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (“TANF”) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits. Sheila Perdue also brought an individual disability discrimination claim. The trial court granted summary judgment to FSSA on Plaintiffs’ claim that their procedural due process rights were violated, but granted summary judgment to Perdue individually and to the class of SNAP applicants/recipients whose benefits were denied or terminated for failure to cooperate. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to Perdue and as to those whose SNAP benefits were denied or terminated for failure to cooperate, and reversed the award of summary judgment to FSSA, holding the procedures at issue did not afford Plaintiffs due process. Perdue v. Murphy, 938 N.E.2d 766 (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 Dec. 3, 2010 COA decision in a class action where the COA ruled: "Adverse action notices lacking specificity as to missing or allegedly missing eligibility documents do not comport with the requirement of procedural due process. Accordingly, the Recipients established their entitlement to injunctive relief and summary judgment in favor of the FSSA is reversed. The FSSA has demonstrated no substantial harm from an injunction to refrain from denying or terminating public welfare benefits in contravention of federal law." For background, start with this ILB entry from April 1, 2010, headed "Disputed welfare practices don't hold up in [trial] court," which includes a link to the trial court opinion.
- 9:45 AM - Harold J. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank (01S04-1107-PL-438) - The Adams Circuit Court entered summary judgment for the Bank on its claims against Klinker, including a fraud claim, and ordered Klinker to pay treble damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed after concluding that Klinker’s affidavit denying fraudulent intent and opposing summary judgment failed to show a genuine issue of material fact. Klinker v. First Merchants Bank, N.A., 938 N.E.2d 846 (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 Dec. 17, 2010 opinion where the COA ruled "The trial court erred in excluding Klinker's affidavit, but summary judgment was proper because even with Klinker's affidavit, there was no genuine issue of material fact."
- 10:30 AM - Rodney Nicholson v. State of Indiana (55S01-1107-CR-444) - In the Morgan Superior Court, a jury found Nicholson guilty of stalking, a class C felony. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the conviction. Nicholson v. State, 948 N.E.2d 820 (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 was a 2-1 April 29, 2011 COA ruling where the majority reversed the trial court: "The single phone call on November 1, 2008, is insufficient to support Nicholson's stalking conviction."
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 10/3/11):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/26/11):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 10/3/11):
Tuesday, October 4th
- 11:00 AM - David R. Camm v. State of Indiana (87A01-1102-CR-25) - Interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of Appellant's petition for a special prosecutor. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Brown, Bailey and Friedlander. [Where: Shircliff Theatre, Vincennes University (NOT WEBCAST)]
ILB: For background, see this Sept. 9th ILB entry.
- 3:00 PM - Brett A. Head-Mattingly v. State of Indiana (82A05-1103-CR-127)- Brett Head-Mattingly was convicted of burglary and theft for acts committed at an Evansville home on September 24, 2010, and of attempted burglary for acts committed at a different Evansville home on September 25, 2010. He argues the trial court erred by denying his request for separate trials for the acts committed on separate days. He also claims letters he sent from jail to his accomplice should not have been admitted into evidence because they included inadmissible character evidence and caused unfair prejudice. The Scheduled Panel Members are: [Info not provided] [Where: Schroeder Family School of Business, University of Evansville Campus (NOT WEBCAST)]
Wednesday, October 5th
- 12:00 PM - Jacob Key, et. al., v. Dewayne Hamilton (48A02-1007-CT-812) - The main question before the court in this appeal is whether Key can be held liable for Hamilton's injuries based solely on his act of signaling to Owens to proceed through the intersection. The Scheduled Panel Members are: [Info not provided] [Where: Indiana University Maurer School of Law (NOT WEBCAST)]
Thursday, October 6th
- 1:30 PM - Adron Herschel Tancil v. State of Indiana (45A03-1101-CR10) - Adron Herschel Tancil was charged with criminally confining, battering, and attempting to murder his ex-girlfriend. A jury found him guilty as charged. Tancil requested a new trial on the attempted murder charge, contending that the jury's verdict on that count was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court denied the request. Tancil now appeals the trial court's ruling, contending that the attack was no more than a battery. The Scheduled Panel Members are: [Info not provided] [Where: Lorenzo Arredondo Justice Center, Superior Court 2, East Chicago, Indiana (NOT 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 September 26, 2011 08:40 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments