« Ind. Law - " New law, effective July 1, creates the crime of intimidation for using Internet social media sites to post threats." | Main | Catch-up: What did you miss over the weekend from the ILB? »
Monday, June 03, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/3/13):
Thursday, June 6th
- 9:00 AM - Harold A. Fulp, Jr. v. Nancy A. Gilliland (41A01-1111-TR-530) - Ruth was the grantor, trustee, and sole lifetime beneficiary of a revocable living trust when she entered into an agreement with her son Harold to sell the main trust asset, the family farm, to Harold. Soon thereafter, Ruth resigned as trustee and Ruth’s daughter Nancy, as successor trustee, repudiated the purchase agreement. In court action that ensued, Harold sought specific performance of the agreement, among other relief. The trial court denied Harold’s request. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding among other things that Harold is entitled to specific performance. Fulp v. Gilliland, 972 N.E.2d 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), reh’g denied, trans. pending. Nancy has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an August 14, 2012 COA opinion (ILB summary here, 2nd case).
- 9:45 AM - Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana (20S03-1303-CR-158) - The Elkhart Superior Court rescheduled Austin’s trial and denied his motion for discharge. Austin was later convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Austin v. State, 980 N.E.2d 429 (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 Dec. 21, 2012 opinion.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of (6/10/13):
- 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 6/3/13):
Tuesday, June 4th
- 1:30 PM - The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco ( 37A03-1207-PL-323) Lax, Inc. and David Lasco sued attorney Richard Mayer and his firm, Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C. (“SJD”), for defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, tortious interference with a business relationship, and tortious interference with a contract, based on written statements made by Mayer in previous litigation; Lax and Lasco also sought punitive damages. After the lawsuit was initiated, Mayer died. Mayer’s estate and SJD subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Mayer’s estate on the defamation and malicious prosecution claims but allowed those claims to proceed against SJD. It also allowed the abuse of process and tortious interference claims to proceed against the estate and SJD and allowed Lax and Lasco to continue seeking punitive damages. On appeal, SJD claims the malicious prosecution and defamation claims cannot proceed against it because of Mayer’s death. Both the estate and SJD also contend that the statements made by Mayer in the previous litigation were absolutely privileged, that there are no issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the abuse of process and tortious interference claims, and that Lax and Lasco cannot recover punitive damages on any claims. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Bailey, and Barnes. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Wednesday, June 12th
- 1:00 PM - Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al ( 49A04-1208-PL-400) Thomson, Inc. n/k/a Technicolor USA Inc., sued several insurance companies, including Northern Assurance Co. of America as successor in interest to Employers Surplus Lines Insurance Co., seeking insurance coverage for environmental damages at three sites owned by Thomson. Both parties later filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied ESLIC’s motion for summary judgment and granted Thomson’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Thomson was entitled to coverage under the policies ESLIC had issued. ESLIC appeals and argues that the trial court should have applied California law when interpreting the ESLIC policies and that, if California law is applied, Thomson has no coverage under the ESLIC policies for cleanup costs at the contaminated sites because Thomson’s cleanup costs do not constitute damages resulting from a suit brought against Thomson. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May, and Mathias. [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 June 3, 2013 07:14 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments