Monday, November 26, 2012
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next [Corrected]
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (11/26/12):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (12/3/12):
Friday, December 7th
- 9:00 AM - In Re: Visitation of M.L.B.; K.J.R. v. M.A.B. (41S01-1209-MI-556) - One day before granting Stepfather’s petition to adopt Child, the trial court issued an order granting Paternal Grandfather visitation rights as to Child. On Mother’s appeal of the grandparent visitation order, the Court of Appeals affirmed.Matter of Visitation of M.L.B., No. 41A01-1107-MI-285, slip op. (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 June 14, 2012 NFP COA opinion about which the ILB wrote at the time: "This is a 2-1 NFP grandparent visitation rights opinion that might have been classified as 'For Publication' (IMHO).
- 9:45 AM - Brian Scott Hartman v. State of Indiana (68A01-1106-CR-264) - Hartman made incriminating statements while in jail about his involvement with his father’s death. The Randolph Circuit denied Harman’s motion to suppress the statements. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an interlocutory appeal. Hartman v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. pending. Hartman has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
- 10:30 AM - Commissioner of Labor ex rel. Stephen R. Shofstall, et al. v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades AFL-CIO, CLC District Council 91 (49S02-1205-PL-269) - When three former union employees made claims seeking payment for accrued but unused vacation days, the Marion Superior Court granted the union-employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed. Comm’r of Labor ex rel. Shofstall v. Int’l Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, CLC Dist. Council 91, 962 N.E.2d 124 (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, Dec. 20, 2011 COA opinion reversing the trial court.
[From the dissent] I believe the trial court was correct in all respects and therefore respectfully dissent. I will not undertake a detailed summary of what I perceive to be the fallacies in the Majority’s analysis. It suffices to say that, other than on matters of boilerplate law, my views diverge significantly from those of the Majority on virtually all of the positions adopted in route to its conclusions, up to and including the conclusions themselves.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/26/12):
Monday, November 26th
- [According to the docket, on Nov. 20th the COA reschedled this oral argument for Dec. 17th at 1:30 PM.] 1:30 PM -
State of Indiana v. Gregory Lagrone ( 49A05-1203-CR-135) - Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers received an open parcel containing marijuana from a private parcel delivery company. The officers repackaged the marijuana with a GPS tracking device and parcel wire, affixed the original label addressed to “Michael Davis,” and then conducted a controlled delivery to the address on the shipping label, a hotel. Gregory Lagrone retrieved the parcel from the hotel, and surveillance officers followed him by car to his home. A short time later, the parcel wire activated a monitor with surveillance officers, indicating that the parcel had been opened. The officers then knocked and announced themselves. When no one answered, they entered the home without a warrant due to the risk of destruction of the marijuana. In the subsequent prosecution of Lagrone, the trial court granted his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry of the home. The State appeals. We ordered oral argument to ask the parties to address, in part, the relevance to this case of United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012), regarding the constitutionality of attaching a warrantless GPS tracking device to a person’s effects. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Kirsch and May. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 11:00 AM - Secrena D. Erwin v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al (32A01-1202-CT-80) - Appellant, Erwin, brought a civil suit against Appellee, HSBC Mortgage Services, (and others) due to the death of her 5 year old daughter in the backyard pool of a foreclosed home owned by Appellee. Appellee was allegedly on notice regarding the condition of the pool and the associated conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of all named Appellees. This appeal ensued. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Brown and Pyle. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - David S. Delegrange v. State of Indiana (49A04-1203-CR-144) - David Delagrange appeals his convictions for four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation, contending he did not have the intent to create a digitized image of an incident of sexual conduct by a person under eighteen when he, using a camera mounted on his shoe, recorded video of the area beneath the skirt of multiple individuals under the age of eighteen. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Kirsch and May. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Monday, December 3rd
- 1:30 PM - Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. vs. Marsh Supermarkets, LLC. (29A02-1201-PL-4) -Appellant-Defendant, Roche Diagnostics Operations, Inc. (Roche), appeals the trial court’s denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment and its judgment in favor of Marsh Supermarkets, LLC (Marsh), awarding damages for Roche’s breach of its sublease with Marsh. Roche presents this court with three issues: (1) Whether the trial court erred by denying Roche’s cross-motion for summary judgment by a) declining to find as a matter of law that the language of the sublease granted Roche the right to terminate the sublease if it did not receive a subordination, non-disturbance and attornment agreement (SDNA) by a certain date; or, b) by determining that genuine issues of material fact regarding the parties’ cooperation in obtaining the SNDA precluded summary judgment. (2) Whether the trial court erred in granting judgment to Marsh by determining that Roche’s right to terminate the sublease required reasonable prior notice; 2) that Marsh’s delivery of the SNDA to Roche was effective; 3) that Roche had not fulfilled its obligation to cooperate regarding the SNDA; and 4) that Roche had defaulted under the terms of the sublease. (3) Whether the trial court erred in awarding Marsh damages based upon sublease payments under the entire eighteen year term of the sublease rather than awarding damages in light of Roche’s right of early termination upon the fifth anniversary of the sublease. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Bailey and Crone. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals 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 November 26, 2012 08:55 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments