Monday, September 23, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/23/13):
Thursday, September 26
- 9:00 AM - Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Jeffrey M. Miller, et al. (49S02-1305-PL-311) - The Marion Superior Court granted Miller’s discovery request for information about an anonymous defendant who posted an allegedly defamatory comment on the Indianapolis Star’s webpage, and the Star appealed. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order being appealed is interlocutory and that the Court of Appeals lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller, 980 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: Here is the Dec. 7, 2012, 2-1 COA order dismissing the appeal.
- 10:05 AM - Jason Wilson v. Kelly Myers (71S03-1305-DR-399) - The St. Joseph Superior Court modified a prior child custody order to give the mother primary custody of parties' two children. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the father's arguments that the procedure and the order were deficient. Wilson v. Myers, No. 71A03-1204-DR-153 (Ind. Dec. 12, 2012), (NFP mem. dec.). The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a Dec. 12, 2012 NFP COA opinion, where the COA writes: "At issue today is Wilson’s contention that he is entitled to reversal of an order modifying primary physical custody of the parties’ two children from Wilson to Myers because of the trial court’s lack of formality during various proceedings."
- 10:50 AM - Christopher Groce, et al. v. American Family Insurance Co., et al. (48S02-1307-CT-472) - After the Groces's home was destroyed by a fire, they filed a complaint against their insurance agent and American Family Insurance Company, alleging the agent negligently failed to obtain a homeowner's policy with 100% replacement coverage as represented. The Madison Circuit Court entered summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the claim was barred because the two-year statute of limitations began to run on the date the policy commenced and was not tolled by the agent's alleged representation. Groce v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 986 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a March 6, 2013 NFP opinion: "The Groces appeal and present a single dispositive issue, namely, whether their claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We affirm."
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 10/3/13):
Thursday, October 3
- 9:00 AM - VFW Post 2953 v. City of Evansville AND Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Evansville (882S01-1306-PL-00437 AND 82S01-1306-CT-00436) - The City of Evansville passed an ordinance banning smoking in workplaces and other public places, including private clubs and taverns, but exempting riverboat casinos. Several private clubs and tavern owners sought injunctive and declaratory relief on grounds the ordinance violates the Indiana Constitution. The Vanderburgh Circuit Court denied injunctive relief and entered a judgment upholding the ordinance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. See VFW Post 2953 v. City of Evansville, (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated, and Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Evansville, (Ind. Ct. App. Feb 15, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the cases and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeals.
ILB: These were two Feb. 17, 2013 NFP opinions where the COA said "that a Vanderburgh County judge correctly denied injunctions requested by a group of tavern owners and private clubs against Evansville's smoking ban, which took effect last April," per this ILB post which also asked why these opinions had not been deemed for-publication, as they appear to meet the Rule 65(A) criterion: "involves a legal or factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance."
- 9:45 AM - Ernesto Ramirez v. State of Indiana (45S05-1305-CR-331) - The Lake Superior Court released a juror from service, and Ramirez moved for a mistrial on grounds the jury had been “tainted.” The trial court denied the motion for mistrial, and Ramirez was convicted of murder and criminal gang activity. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum decision. Ramirez v. State, (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 2/19/13 NPF COA opinion that concluded:
The trial court properly denied Ramirez’s motion for a mistrial as a result of the incident with Juror 282. Further, Ramirez’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. We affirm.
- 10:30 AM - Alva Electric, Inc., et al. v. Evansville Vanderburgh School Corp., et al. (82S01-1307-PL-473) -
When local taxpayers and contractors filed a lawsuit against a school corporation and a private educational foundation and accused them of violating public bidding laws and the Indiana Antitrust Act in connection with the renovation of an administration building, the Vanderburgh Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the school corporation and the educational foundation. The Court of Appeals reversed. Alva Elec., Inc. v. Evansville Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 984 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a March 6, 2013, 2-1 COA opinion involving whether "the renovation of the administration building constituted a public work project that should have been subject to the public bidding laws of Indiana."
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/23/13):
Tuesday, September 24th
- 10:00 AM - A.C. v. N.C. [ILB: or is it N.J.?] ( 75A03-1209-CR-402) A.C. and N.J. were in a same-sex domestic relationship, during which they decided to have a child. N.J. was artificially inseminated using sperm from an unidentified donor, and she gave birth to C.J. in April 2008. A.C. and N.J. split up in August 2010, and, with N.J.’s consent, A.C. had regular visitation with C.J. for approximately nine months. Thereafter, N.J. ended all contact between A.C. and C.J. A.C. subsequently filed an action seeking joint custody and visitation with C.J., which the trial court denied. A.C. now appeals. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Baker, Friedlander, and, Vaidik.
[Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:00 PM - William Klepper v. Ace American Insurance, Inc. (15A05-1212-CC-645) In 2005, William Klepper brought a class action lawsuit against Pernod Ricard, LLC, d/b/a Seagrams Lawrenceburg Distillery (“Pernod”) alleging that emissions from the distillery had discolored and degraded the exterior of nearby buildings. ACE American Insurance Company (“ACE”) and XL Insurance Company (“XL”) insured Pernod. In 2009, the Class, Pernod, and XL entered into a settlement agreement, which called for ACE to contribute $3,000,000 toward the $5,200,000 judgment and released Pernod and XL from liability. ACE did not consent to the settlement, and Klepper, as Pernod’s assignee, sued ACE. Eventually a Special Master was appointed to decide six coverage-related issues. After the Special Master concluded that Pernod breached the insurance contract by entering into the agreed judgment without ACE’s consent, the trial court adopted the Special Master’s report and entered final judgment on the six issues decided by the Special Master. Klepper now appeals, and ACE cross-appeals. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Barnes, Crone, and, Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/30/13):
- 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 September 23, 2013 08:45 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments