Monday, October 08, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (10/8/12):
Thursday, October 11th
- 9:00 AM - Brandy L. Walczak, et al. v. Labor Works – Fort Wayne, LLC, et al. (02S04-1208-PL-497) - In this wage dispute, the trial court awarded summary judgment to Labor Works based on the court’s determination that Walczak’s complaint was governed by the Wage Claims Statute, and not the Wage Payment Statute, and therefore should have first been submitted to the Indiana Department of Labor. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint, holding that the determination of which statute governs Walczak’s complaint must first be made by the Department, not the trial court. Walczak v. Labor Works – Fort Wayne, LLC, 966 N.E.2d 642 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a March 5th, 2012 COA NFP opinion stating "We believe that * * * this is precisely the type of fact-sensitive inquiry that should be resolved in the first instance by the administrative agency."
- 9:45 AM - Loren Fry v. State of Indiana (09S00-1205-CR-361) - Appellant Loren Fry was charged with murder and requested bail. Article 1, Section 17, of the Indiana Constitution provides that murder is not a bailable offense “when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.” Indiana Code section 35-38-8-2(b) states that the defendant has the burden of proof that he should be admitted to bail. Fry sought a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional because it removed the presumption that he was innocent and entitled to bail and put the burden of proof on him. The trial court ordered the that State should first show that the proof was evident, and then Fry would have the burden to convince the court that he should be admitted to bail. The trial court concluded that to the extent the statute conflicted with this procedure, the statute violates the state constitution. The trial court denied bail. This case was docketed as a direct appeal.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (10/15/12):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 10/8/12):
Tuesday, October 9th
- 1:00 PM - Verdyer O. Clark vs. State of Indiana ( 49A04-1202-CR-66) - Verdyer Clark was convicted of battery as a Class D felony, which required the State to prove the battery caused injury to a person less than fourteen years old and was committed by a person at least eighteen years old. Clark argues the State did not prove its case because its only evidence he was over eighteen was inadmissible hearsay. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May and Senior Judge Shepard. [Where: Vanderburgh County Old Courthouse, Randall T. Shepard Courtroom, Evansville, Indiana]
Thursday, October 11th
- 10:00 AM - Boulder Acquisition Corp., et al, v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (93A02-1202-EX-127) - After Boulder Acquisition Corporation (“BAC”) merged with Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (“ACS”), the Indiana Department of Workforce Development determined that BAC was the successor employer for ACS and each of ACS’s 26 subsidiaries. Therefore, the Department combined the 27 previously separate experience accounts for purposes of unemployment contributions into a single account and assessed a single contribution rate. BAC protested the determination, but the Liability Administrative Law Judge agreed with the Department, concluding BAC was the successor employer to ACS and all of its subsidiaries because it had acquired “the organization, trade, or business, or substantially all the assets” of ACS and the subsidiaries. BAC now appeals, contending it acquired only ACS, such that the Department’s determination should be reversed, separate experience accounts restored, contribution rates readjusted, and overpayments by BAC refunded. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Baker and Bradford. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 11:00 AM - Leslie Bridges, individually and as Class Representative of all those similarly situated v. Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC, et al (49A02-1112-CC-1097) - Appellant-Plaintiff Leslie Bridges, individually and as Class Representative of all those similarly situated, appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellees-Defendants Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC’s, Veolia Water North America Operating Service, LLC’s, and the City of Indianapolis, Department of Waterworks’s (collectively, “Appellees”) motion to dismiss. In granting the Appellees’ motion, the trial court found that Appellant had failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies. In arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her claims against the Appellees, Appellant contends that she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit against the Appellees in the trial court. Appellees, for their part, contend that the trial court properly granted their motion to dismiss The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judge Bradford and Sr. Judge Shepard. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Wednesday, October 17th
- 1:30 PM - Duke Energy v. Indiana Utility Regulation Commission (93A02-1111-EX-1042) - A January 2009 ice storm in southern Indiana caused damage to Duke Energy Indiana’s electrical system. Duke filed a petition with the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) seeking deferred accounting treatment for its operating expenses relating to this storm. An evidentiary hearing was held, and Scott Storms was the administrative law judge. The Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor (OUCC) opposed Duke’s request for deferred accounting treatment on grounds that it constituted both retroactive ratemaking and single-issue ratemaking. The IURC approved Duke’s request, and the OUCC appealed.
While the OUCC’s appeal was pending before this Court, Storms accepted employment with Duke. After it was discovered that Storms was negotiating employment with Duke while cases involving Duke – including this one – were pending before him, an investigation was launched. Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 37, the OUCC filed a verified motion for stay of appeal and remand. This Court granted the OUCC’s motion and remanded this case to the IURC. In addition, the IURC reopened this case for further review and consideration. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Vaidik, Mathias and Barnes. [Where: Indiana Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Thussday, October 18th
- 11:00 AM - Flaherty & Collins, Inc., v. BBR-Vision I, and New Castle Realty, LLC (93A02-1111-EX-1042) - BBR-Vision I, L.P. entered into a management agreement with Flaherty & Collins, Inc., whereby BBR-Vision I, L.P. hired Flaherty & Collins, Inc. to manage a low-income housing apartment complex owned and operated by BBR-Vision I, L.P. and its general partner, New Castle Realty, LLC. After an employee of Flaherty & Collins, Inc. altered the income certification documents of several tenants, BBR-Vision I, L.P. and New Castle Realty, LLC filed a five-count complaint against Flaherty & Collins, Inc. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment. The trial court denied Flaherty & Collins, Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the designated evidence established a claim and entitlement to damages under the Indiana’s Crime Victims Relief Act and that New Castle Realty, LLC has standing. The trial court granted BBR-Vision I, L.P. and New Castle Realty, LLC’s motion for partial summary judgment on their indemnity and fraud claims. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Brown and Sr. Judge Darden. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeal 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 October 8, 2012 09:55 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments