Monday, November 28, 2011
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/28/11):
Thursday, December 1st
- 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 On UPS’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an unpublished order granting summary judgment to UPS.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 - Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Technologies, LLC, et al. (94S00-1109-CQ-546) -
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana certified the following questions of Indiana law for the Indiana Supreme Court’s consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on September 30, 2011. The questions, as framed by the district court, are:
(1) Is Wabash Railroad Co. v. Young, 69 N.E. 1003 (Ind. 1904), still good law, such that individuals who voluntarily leave employment are precluded from pursuing a claim under Indiana Code section 22-5-3-2?
(2) In an action brought under Indiana Code section 22-5-3-2, are attorney fees incurred in defending an unsuccessful claim against a former employee or in prosecuting a claim by a former employee recoverable as compensatory damages?
(3) Is an unsuccessful suit to protect alleged trade secrets, within which a former employer seeks to preclude any competitive employment of a former employee by pursuing permanent injunctive relief and in settlement negotiations, a basis for recovery under Indiana Code section 22-5-3-2?
- 10:30 AM - Sean Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan (71S03-1111-DR-644) - Following a divorce decree in which the St. Joseph Circuit Court adopted the parties’ property settlement agreement, the former husband filed a motion for relief under Trial Rule 60(B), claiming that the agreement should be modified because circumstances prevented the parties’ homes from being sold, but the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed. Ryan v. Ryan, 946 N.E.2d 1191 (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 28, 2011 COA opinion where the panel ruled: "we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Husband’s motion under Rule 60(B)(8) without first holding an evidentiary hearing. We remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing at which the parties are given the opportunity to present evidence in support of or opposition to Husband’s motion for relief from judgment and for the court to grant relief as appropriate after considering the evidence presented at the hearing." See ILB summary here, 2nd case.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 12/5/11):
Thursday, December 8th
- 9:00 AM - Randall Woodruff, et al. v. Indiana Family & Social Services (29S02-1110-PL-598) -
When a former intermediate care facility for developmentally disabled persons, by its bankruptcy trustee, brought contract and quantum meruit claims against the FSSA to recover expenses for caring for Medicaid patients, and the FSSA counterclaimed for setoff of costs incurred when the facility went into receivership, the Hamilton Superior Court granted summary judgment orders that resulted in no recovery for the facility. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Woodruff v. Indiana Family & Social Servs. Adm., 947 N.E.2d 934 (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 April 11, 2011 COA opinion. See ILB summary here.
- 9:45 AM - Reginald Person, Jr., et al. v. Carol Shipley (20S04-1110-CT-609) - After Shipley's sedan rear-ended Person's eighteen-wheel semi-tractor trailer, Person filed a personal injury action against Shipley in the Elkhart Superior Court. During the trial, over Person's object, expert witnesses called by Shipley testified about the causal relationship between the impact and Person's alleged injuries. The jury returned a verdict for Shipley. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the expert opinion evidence. Person v. Shipley, 949 N.E.2d 386 (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 May 6, 2011 COA opinion. See ILB summary here.
- 10:30 AM - John Witt, et al. v. Jay Petroleum, Inc. (38S02-1110-CV-608) - John Witt filed a complaint against Jay Petroleum, Inc. and Jack James seeking reimbursement of the cost to remediate environmental damage to land. Jay Petroleum filed a motion for temporary restraining order ("TRO"), contending Witt's remediation work would interfere with Jay Petroleum's testing of the site. The trial court granted the TRO. Thereafter, Jay Petroleum filed a motion for contempt, alleging Witt, his contractor, and his attorney had violated the TRO. The court found Witt and the others in contempt and awarded Jay Petroleum and James attorney's fees and expenses. The Court of Appeals reversed. Witt v. Jay Petroleum, Inc., 948 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a May 13, 2011 COA opinion. See ILB summary here.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/28/11):
Tuesday, November 29th
- 1:40 PM - Christopher A. Bryant v. State of Indiana (45A03-1101-CR-11) - Christopher Bryant was convicted of two counts of Class A felony dealing in a narcotic drug, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession and admitted to being a habitual substance offender, for which he received an aggregate sentence of forty-five years of incarceration. On appeal, Bryant contends that (1) he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney failed to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search and seizure, (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying his mistrial motion, and (3) the trial court bused its discretion in sentencing him. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Darden and Bradford. [Where: Lawrence North High School, Indianapolis]
Wednesday, November 29th
- 1:30 PM - Indianapolis Education Association and President Elden Wolting v. Indianapolis Public Schools (49A02-1101-PL-27) - Indianapolis Education Association and its president, Elden Wolting, appeal the trial court’s order reversing the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board’s decision that Indianapolis Public School (“IPS”) had engaged in an unfair labor practice when IPS failed to collectively bargain the addition of twenty-five days to the school calendar for four IPS schools. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Darden and Vaidik. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 12/5/11):
Tuesday, December 6th
- 10:00 AM - Natalia Robertson, et al. vs. Gene B. Glick Company, Inc., et al. (49A05-1104-CT-158) - Natalia Robertson, the personal representative of the Estate of John Lee Cunningham, filed a wrongful death action on behalf of Cunningham’s autistic twelve-year old daughter. The action was dismissed pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-23-1-1 because more than two years had passed since the death of Cunningham. Natalia Robertson challenges the constitutionality of the Indiana General Wrongful Death Act, Ind. Code § 34-23-1-1. She contends its two-year limitations period which does not permit tolling in wrongful death claims involving disabled beneficiaries violates Indiana’s Privileges and Immunities clause, Ind. Const. art 1, § 23, and Due Course of Law clause, Ind. Const. art 1, § 12. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Barnes and Bradford. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 11:30 AM - Utility Center, Inc., vs. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana (49A02-1101-PL-27) - The City of Fort Wayne condemned Utility Center, Inc.’s property and the board of public works determined the amount of compensation owed to Utility Center. Utility Center appealed the Board’s determined amount to the trial court. Ruling on motions by the City, the trial court ordered that it will review the Board’s determination under an abuse of discretion standard, and that Utility Center is not entitled to a jury trial. In this interlocutory appeal, Utility Center argues the trial court is not limited to the abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the Board’s determination, and if it is, that limited review violates both the United States Constitution and the Indiana Constitution. Utility Center also argues it is entitled to have a jury determine the value of the condemned property The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Barnes and Bradford. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - Paul K. Ogden vs. Stephen Robertson, et al, (49A05-1101-CT-45) - Appellant, Paul K. Ogden (Ogden), appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee, Stephen Robertson, et al., with respect to Ogden’s perceived wrongful termination claim. Ogden presents us with four issues on appeal, which we restate as the following three issues: First, he contends that the trial court erred in determining that he did not have a viable claim under the Indiana Whistleblower Law. Second, Ogden argues that the trial court erred in determining that a memorandum he sent to Commissioner James Atterholt did not constitute protected speech under the Indiana Constitution. Third, Ogden asserts that the trial court erred in determining that he was not entitled to the due process protections afforded to state at-will employees with more than six months experience. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, May and, Mathias. [Where: Rensselaer Central High School, 1106 East Grace Street, Rensselaer, IN 47978]
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 November 28, 2011 10:11 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments