Monday, August 26, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/26/13):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/2/13):
Thursday, September 5
- 9:00 AM - Indiana Gas Company, Inc. v. Indiana Finance Authority (93S02-1306-EX-407) - The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approved a contract between the Indiana Finance Authority and Indiana Gasification, LLC for the purchase of substitute natural gas. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the contract defines retail end use customer contrary to statutes authorizing the contract. Indiana Gas Co. v. Indiana Fin. Auth., 977 N.E.2d 981 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: Transfer was granted for all three appellants - This is the Rockport coal gasification case. Here are links to the Oct. 30, 2012 COA opinion, the briefs for the COA case, plus a link to the 106-page order of the IURC, approved Nov. 22, 2011. Here are links to some of the responses to the petition to transfer.
- 9:45 AM - Howard Justice v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (49S02-1303-PL-221) - After Howard Justice was injured in an automobile accident, he received $25,000 from the other driver's insurer, which was the limit of the driver's policy, and more than $70,000 in worker's compensation benefits. Justice then filed a complaint against his automobile insurer, seeking payment under the policy's $50,000 underinsured motorist coverage. American Family contends that after applying the policy's set off provision to the amounts received by the insured, it owes no obligation under its policy. The Marion Superior Court entered summary judgment for American Family. The Court of Appeals reversed. Justice v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 971 N.E.2d 1236 (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 7/18/12 COA opinion concluded:
In this case, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment reflects, without opinion, its agreement with AFI that the setoffs should result in a reduction from the UIM policy limits. Under the rationale of Beam, however, this is incorrect as a matter of law. After a determination of liability and damages, Justice’s damages award should be reduced by the $25,000.00 recovery from Wagner and the percentage of worker’s compensation benefits paid to Justice based upon Wagner’s percentage of comparative fault, up to a maximum of $25,000.00. Reversed and remanded with instructions.
- 10:30 AM - Julie Kitchell v. Ted Franklin, et al. (09S00-1307-PL-476) - This case involves a ratepayer’s challenge to the validity of a city ordinance and resolution allowing the City of Logansport to negotiate a public-private agreement that would change certain aspects of how electricity is generated and provided to Logansport residents. On April 10, 2013, the Cass Superior Court, the Honorable Rick A. Maughmer presiding, granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and on May 9, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed. On July 2, 2013, the Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over the appeal by granting a verified motion to transfer filed by the Appellees/Defendants pursuant to App. Rule 56(A).
ILB: This is the Rule 56(A) transfer, one where the Court has determined that "the appeal involves a substantial question of law of great public importance and that an emergency exists requiring a speedy determination," thereby eliminating the need/opportunity for COA review. For background on this case, see this June 16 ILB entry quoting a story from the Pharos-Tribune, headed "Attorney claims Logansport officials falsified documents". Also this July 17th entry.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/26/13):
Tuesday, August 27th
- 11:00 AM - Katherine Chaffins, et al, vs. Clint Kauffman, M.D., et al (66A04-1302-CT-85) Katherine Chaffins and her husband appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Clint Kauffman; his practice, Family and Women’s Health Services; and Pulaski County Memorial Hospital. Dr. Kauffman performed a routine colonoscopy on Katherine, immediately after which Katherine complained to the hospital staff of intense abdominal pain. Katherine was presumed to have common gas pain, no further inquiry was made, and she was discharged from the hospital after twenty-two minutes of recovery. Twelve hours later, Katherine’s pain had worsened, and she returned to the hospital, where an X-ray revealed that her colon had been perforated during the procedure.
The Chaffinses filed a negligence claim against the three defendants, alleging their decision to discharge Katherine without inquiring into the source of her pain fell below a reasonable standard of care associated with post-colonoscopy treatment. A medical malpractice review panel found that the defendants were not negligent, and the Pulaski Superior Court subsequently granted summary judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Chaffinses argue that they presented sufficient evidence of disputed material fact with regard to the standard of care. The Chaffinses’ expert witness testified that a perforated colon must be considered, and an X-ray must be performed, when a patient complains of severe abdominal pain following a colonoscopy. This testimony, the Chaffinses claim, was in direct conflict with the medical malpractice review panel’s findings on the issue. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Bradford, and Brown. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - Claire's Boutiques, Inc., vs. Brownsburg Station Partners (32A01-1209-CC-438) Following a bench trial in this breach of contract case, Claire’s Boutiques, Inc., a tenant of a strip mall owned by Brownsburg Station Partners, LLC, appeals the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment and the entry of final judgment in favor Brownsburg regarding the interpretation of the operating co-tenancy provision in its retail lease. Brownsburg cross-appeals, asserting that the trial court erred when it denied Brownsburg’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding construction of the operating co-tenancy provision and that the court erred when it denied Brownsburg’s request for consequential damages at trial. The main issues on appeal are the construction of the operating co-tenancy provision in the lease and whether the tenant’s complete removal from the leased premises without notice constitutes termination of the lease by Claire’s or, instead, abandonment of the leased premises in default of the lease. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Bailey, and Barnes. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - John S. Paniaguas, et al, vs. Endor, Inc., et al (45A03-1205-PL-244) This case arises from a dispute between Appellant homeowners, who own homes in Unit 1 of a subdivision located in Crown Point, Indiana that were built by an initial developer, and subsequent Appellee homeowners, who purchased homes in the same subdivision, some of which were in Unit 1 and some of which were in Unit 2, that were built by a second developer. Appellant homeowners alleged that Appellee homeowners’ homes were in violation of the subdivision’s restrictive covenants and requested injunctive relief and damages. After a bench trial, the trial court determined that Appellee homeowners’ homes were in compliance with the restrictive covenants, and Appellant homeowners now appeal, arguing that: (1) the trial court erred in determining that they lacked standing to enforce the restrictive covenants against certain homeowners in Unit 2 of the subdivision based on the court’s finding that the restrictive covenants only applied to Unit 1 of the subdivision; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting minutes of the Architectural Control Committee under the business records exception to the hearsay rule; (3) the evidence presented failed to support the trial court’s finding that all of the homes built by the second developer complied with the restrictive covenants; and (4) the trial court’s findings were deficient under Indiana Trial Rule 52. Appellee homeowners cross-appeal, contending that the trial court erred in not granting them attorney fees because Appellant homeowners’ claims were frivolous. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Vaidik, and Pyle. [Where: Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- No arguments currently scheduled.
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 August 26, 2013 08:37 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments