Monday, January 21, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (1/21/13):
Tuesday, January 22nd
- 11:00 AM - Girl Scouts of So. Illinois, et al. v. Vincennes Ind. Girls (42S00-1210-PL-597) - In 1965, the National Girl Scouts underwent reorganization, and as a result, the appellee, Vincennes Indiana Girls (“VIG”) was required to convey some ten acres of land known as Camp Wildwood to an Illinois scout council, the appellant, Girl Scouts of Southern Illinois (“GSSI”). The deed specified that ownership of the camp would revert to VIG if that camp was not used as a scouting facility for a period of 49 years. The deed also specified that if VIG’s corporate existence was terminated, the reversion right would automatically terminate; VIG was administratively dissolved for a time because an annual fee had not been paid to the Secretary of State. By 2009, GSSI had stopped using the land as a scout camp and had notified VIG that it intended to sell the camp. VIG filed a quiet title action, asserting that title to Camp Wildwood had reverted to VIG. IC 32-30-3-14 provides that “a possibility of reverter…concerning real property is invalid after thirty (30) years from the date [it] is created….” The Knox Circuit Court granted summary judgment for VIG, deciding that IC 32-30-3-14 was unconstitutional as applied, that VIG did not lose its right to the camp when it was administratively dissolved, and that VIG owns the fee simple title to Camp Wildwood. This is a direct appeal.
Thursday, January 31st
- 9:00 AM - John W. Schoettmer, et al. v. Jolene Wright, et al. (49S04-1210-CT-607) - Following an automobile collision between Schoettmer and an employee of South Central Community Action Program, Inc., Schoettmer and the defendants’ insurer engaged in settlement negotiations that ultimately proved unsuccessful. Schoettmer did not separately provide notice of his claim to the defendants. After Schoettmer filed suit, the defendants moved for summary judgment based on Schoettmer’s noncompliance with the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Schoettmer v. Wright, 971 N.E.2d 118 (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 July 13, 2012, 2-1 COA opinion, where the majority wrote: "It is undisputed that, as a designated community action agency, South Central is a political subdivision pursuant to the ITCA. See IC 34-13-3-22. The ITCA bars tort claims against a political subdivision unless notice of the claim is filed with the governing body of that political subdivision within 180 days after the loss occurs.".
- 9:45 AM - State of Indiana v. Russell Oney (49S05-1212-CR-668) - In 2002, Oney pleaded guilty to being an habitual traffic violator (“HTV”). Later, one of the three underlying convictions was set aside. In post-conviction proceedings relating to the 2002 HTV guilty plea, the Marion Superior Court granted Oney’s request to withdraw the guilty plea and set aside the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed in State v. Oney, 974N.E.2d 1054 (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 is a Sept. 24, 2012 COA opinion where the State presented a single issue for review: whether the trial court erred when it vacated Oney’s 2002 guilty plea to the HTV conviction on the ground that one of the predicate offenses to the HTV conviction had been reversed in post-conviction proceedings with the agreement of the State.
- 10:30 AM - Darrell Lawrence v. State of Indiana (49S02-1211-CR-620) - Lawrence was charged with possession of cocaine and resisting law enforcement. The Marion Superior Court ruled that the cocaine taken from Lawrence was inadmissible because the police search had been improper, and the trial court dismissed the drug charge. The trial court denied Lawrence’s motion to exclude, as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence of Lawrence’s actions during the search that led to the charge of resisting law enforcement. Lawrence was convicted of resisting, and both sides appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction in a not-for-publication opinion, concluding that the evidence of resisting should not have been admitted. Lawrence v. State, No. 49A02-1110-CR-938, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an Aug. 7, 2012 NFP COA opinion, concluding that "the evidence presented by the State to support his conviction for resisting law enforcement was improperly admitted as fruit of the poisonous tree."
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/21/13):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Wednesday, January 30th
- 1:30 PM - State of Indiana vs. I. T. (20A03-1202-JV-76) In April 2006, I.T. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would constitute class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. As part of its dispositional order, the juvenile court ordered I.T. to participate in an outpatient juvenile sex-offender treatment program and to undergo polygraph examinations to ensure his compliance with the rules of probation and the treatment program. During one of these polygraph examinations, I.T. admitted to sexually abusing two additional children. Based on these disclosures, police conducted an investigation and obtained a statement from one of the alleged victims implicating I.T. Police also conducted an interview of I.T., during which I.T. again confessed. Based on this information, the State filed an additional delinquency petition against I.T. alleging that he had committed acts that would be class B and class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult. I.T. successfully moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that his statements during the polygraph examination and all evidence derived therefrom were inadmissible. The State now appeals. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Brown and Pyle. [Where: 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 January 21, 2013 09:33 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments