Monday, January 09, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 1/9/12):
Thursday, January 12th
- 9:00 AM - Indiana Department of Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc. (49S10-1112-TA-683) - The Department of State Revenue assessed additional AGI tax liability on RAC East for the 2003 tax year based on the Department’s determination that RAC East should have filed a combined AGI tax return with two of its affiliates. On RAC East’s original tax appeal, the Tax Court issued an order granting summary judgment to RAC East. Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 952 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2011). The Supreme Court has granted a petition for review.
ILB: This is a May 31, 2011 Tax Court opinion re whether the Department of Revenue properly required RAC East to report its 2003 Indiana AGI tax liability using a combined income tax return with two of its affiliates.
- 9:45 AM - Robert L. Clark, Jr. v. Robert L. Clark, Sr. (01S02-1112-CT-690) - Robert Clark Jr. was struck and injured by a car being operated by his father, Robert Clark Sr., at a moment when Junior had exited the car to assist Senior with parallel parking. Junior filed a negligence action against Senior, and the trial court awarded summary judgment to Senior on the basis that the Indiana Guest Statute, I.C. § 34-30-11-1, bars Junior’s claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Clark v. Clark, No. 01A02-1007-CT-759 (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ILB: This is a three-opinion, 2-1 vote, July 17, 2011 Not for Publication opinion where the majority opinion reversed the trial court, concluding "Because Senior's admission that Junior was not 'in or upon' the vehicle is dispositive of his affirmative defense, we hold the Indiana Guest Statute inapplicable here. Thus, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion."
- 10:30 AM - Kenneth Vaughn v. State of Indiana (45S05-1112-CR-684 ) - Vaughn gave non-responsive answers while testifying at his trial on robbery charges, and despite instructions from the Lake Superior Court, he refused to stop. Vaughn was restrained for a time. The trial court denied Vaughn’s motion for a mistrial, but a majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed and granted a new trial in Vaughn v. State, 954 N.E.2d 482 (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 2-1 Sept. 14, 2011 COA opinion, where the majority concluded "Muzzling and restraining Vaughn in front of the jury for this momentary outburst deprived him of an otherwise fair trial before an untainted and impartial jury. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Vaughn’s motion for mistrial. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial."
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 1/16/12):
- 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 1/9/12):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/16/12):
Thursday, January 19th
- 12:30 PM - Anthony Wade vs. Terex-Telelect, Inc. (29A05-1101-CT-72) - This appeal originates from a complaint alleging that Terex-Telelect, Inc. (“Terex”) was negligent under the Indiana Product Liability Act in the design of an aerial passenger bucket, which was attached to a bucket truck and from which Anthony Wade (“Wade”) fell and was rendered a quadriplegic. Wade appeals from a jury verdict in favor of Terex and asserts that the trial court erred when it: (1) denied Wade’s partial motion for directed verdict regarding Terex’s affirmative defense that its product was in conformity with the generally recognized state of the art applicable to the safety of the product; and (2) instructed the jury regarding the state of the art defense and the affirmative defense that the product complied with government regulations because there was not sufficient evidence to support giving these instruction. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Vaidik and Bradford. [Where: Krannert Center for Executive Education Purdue University]
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 January 9, 2012 05:13 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments