Monday, November 18, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/18/13):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/25/13):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/18/13):
Tuesday, November 19th
- 10:30 AM - B.M. v. The Indiana Department of Child Services ( 15A04-1303-JT-142) B.M. (Father) appeals the involuntary termination of his parental rights to Q.M. and E.M. (Children).
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Bailey, May, and Bradford.
[Where: Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 11:00 AM - William Hinesley, III, v. State of Indiana ( 55A05-1302-PC-80) In December 2010, following a bench trial, William Hinesley, III, was convicted of class A felony child molesting. After this Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal, Hinesley filed a petition for post-conviction relief claiming that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel due to his counsel’s deliberate strategic choice to permit the trier of fact to consider as substantive evidence hearsay statements attributed to the State’s primary witnesses. He also claimed ineffective assistance due to his counsel’s failure to object to improper vouching and uncharged misconduct testimony. In addition, Hinesley raised a freestanding claim of fundamental error due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct based upon the prosecutor’s knowing use of the inadmissible hearsay, vouching, and uncharged misconduct evidence. The post-conviction court denied relief, and Hinesley now appeals.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Barnes, Crone, and Pyle.
[Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:00 PM - Duane Jadrich v. State of Indiana ( 32A04-1302-CR-67) Duane Jadrich appeals from his convictions for Class A misdemeanor marijuana possession and Class A misdemeanor paraphernalia possession. Jadrich argues that the evidence supporting his convictions should be suppressed because: (1) police found marijuana only after entering a fenced-in backyard, despite the presence of signage directing visitors to only use the front door; (2) police found paraphernalia in Jadrich’s home after telling him that he could either consent to a search or a search warrant would be obtained; and (3) Jadrich was allegedly in custody when police sought his consent to search his home, but police failed to advise him that he could consult with an attorney, as required by the Indiana Constitution. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Bailey, and Bradford. [Where: Lawrence North High School, Indianapolis, Indiana 46360]
Thursday, November 21st
- 12:30 PM - Tammy Lou Kelley v. State of Indiana (09A04-1303-CR-98) The State charged Tammy Lou Kelley with attempted murder, criminal confinement, battery resulting in bodily injury, two counts of battery on law enforcement officers, and resisting law enforcement, all stemming from an incident in which she stabbed a child left in her care and was uncooperative and combative with officers who arrived to assist. Kelley requested a psychiatric, competency, and mental status evaluation. Two court-appointed doctors filed reports finding Kelley competent for purposes of trial but unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the offense. At the bench trial, the parties stipulated to the police reports, medical reports, and psychiatric evaluations. No live testimony was taken. At the conclusion of the bench trial, the trial court found Kelley not guilty of attempted murder, and guilty but mentally ill with respect to the remaining counts. Kelley appeals her convictions, contending first that the trial court erred in finding her guilty but mentally ill when the uncontradicted evidence was that she was insane at the time of the incident. She also contends there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions, and that convictions of both battery and confinement of the child victim constitute double jeopardy. Finally, she contends the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without articulating an adequate basis for doing so.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Riley and Kirsch.
[Where: Michigan City High School, Michigan City, Indiana 46360 ]
- 1:30 PM - Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County v. Teton Corporation, et al (72A04-1302-CT-55) The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners (“County Commissioners”) entered into a standard American Institute of Architects contract (“AIA contract”) with Teton Corporation for renovations to the Jefferson County Courthouse. The AIA contract required the County Commissioners to provide builder’s risk insurance for the renovation project, but the County Commissioners decided to rely on the general policy of insurance maintained by Jefferson County instead, and did not notify Teton Corporation that they did not obtain the insurance coverage required by the AIA contract. The AIA contract between the parties also provided for a mutual waiver of the right to subrogation between and among the County Commissioners, Teton Corporation, and all subcontractors. A fire during the renovation caused significant damage to the courthouse. The County Commissioners filed a complaint against Teton and its subcontractors arguing that the County was entitled to damages not covered by insurance and to “non-Work property damage.” Summary judgment proceedings ensued, and the trial court granted Teton’s and its subcontractors’ motions for summary judgment. The County Commissioners appeal and argue that although under the AIA contract they waived their subrogation claims for damages to “work property”, they may still claim damages to “non-Work property” and litigate whether they may also claim for damages caused by gross negligence or willful and wanton acts. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Mathias, and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/25/13):
Monday, November 25th
- 1:30 PM - Michael Weist vs. Kristen Dawn and State Farm Insurance Companies ( 49A02-1306-PL-541) Kristen Dawn allegedly struck Michael Weist with her car as he walked across the street. Weist negotiated with Dawn’s insurer, State Farm. State Farm eventually denied Weist’s claim, asserting that his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Weist filed this lawsuit, and State Farm moved to dismiss. The trial court treated the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of Dawn and State Farm. Weist appeals, claiming that the statute of limitations should not bar his claim due to State Farm’s conduct during negotiations. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, May, and Sr. Judge Shepard. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - State of Indiana vs. International Business Machines Corporation (49A02-1211-PL-875) In December 2006, the State of Indiana, on behalf of its agency the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, entered into a ten-year, $1.3 billion contract with International Business Machines Corporation. The contract sought to modernize and improve the State’s failing welfare system in part by reducing the need for face-to-face meetings with caseworkers. However, less than three years into the ten-year contract, the State terminated the contract citing IBM performance issues and transitioned to a hybrid system. The parties then sued each other for breach of contract in Marion Superior Court.
The trial court granted IBM summary judgment for $40,000,000 in Assignment Fees. And after a six-week bench trial in 2012 involving 96 witnesses and 7500 exhibits, the court found that the State did not terminate the contract for cause and awarded IBM an additional $9,510,795 for equipment costs, $2,570,621 in other contract claims, and $10,632,333 in prejudgment interest, bringing the total to $62,713,749. The State now appeals raising four issues, including whether the trial court erred in concluding that it did not terminate the contract for cause, whether the Assignment Fees are an unenforceable penalty, whether it is liable to IBM for the equipment that it kept after termination of the contract, and whether IBM is entitled to prejudgment interest against the State, a sovereign entity. IBM cross-appeals arguing that it is entitled to an additional $43,416,738 in Deferred Fees and $931,928 in Change Order fees. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Friedlander, and Vaidik. [Where: Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
ILB Note: The Court has granted each side 45 minutes in this argument. Here, via the ILB, is Marion Superior Court Judge David Dreyer's July 18, 2012, 65-page (plus 8 pages of exhibits)opinion.
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 18, 2013 08:32 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments