Monday, November 04, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/4/13):
Thursday, November 7th
- 9:00 AM - Aaron L. Anderson, III v. State of Indiana (29A02-1208-CR-694) - When a police officer initiated a traffic stop, Anderson opened the door and ran. He was found hiding in a backyard shed. A woman standing on her back deck, had seen Anderson run by and heard a “thump, thump, thump.” Anderson told police he had thrown out a bag of marijuana; jail officials found marijuana on him when he was searched at the jail. Approximately an hour later, the woman saw a firearm in a pile of snow on her deck. Following a jury trial, Anderson was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Class B felony, and other offenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed in Anderson v. State, No. 29A02-1208-CR-694 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), trans. pending. Anderson has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal on grounds the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction.
ILB: This is an April 4, 2013 NFP COA opinion.
- 9:45 AM - State of Indiana v. William Coats (49S02-1305-CR-328) - The Marion Superior Court found Coats incompetent to stand trial, and given his progressive dementia, determined that he would not “return to competency.” The trial court denied the State’s request that Coats be committed to the Indiana Division of Mental Health and Addiction pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-36-3-1. A divided Court of Appeals panel affirmed in an interlocutory appeal. State v. Coats, 981 N.E.2d 1273 (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 is a 2/7/13, 2-1 COA opinion where the COA concluded: "The trial court properly denied the State’s motion to commit Coats to the DMHA. We affirm."
- 10:30 AM - Fayette County Board of Commissioners v. Howard Price (21S04-1308-PL-530) - Price petitioned the Fayette Circuit Court to review the Fayette County Board of Commissioners’ decision not to reappoint him as director of the county highway department, and the court denied the Board’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that judicial review is available because the Board was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it made its decision. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Price, 988 N.E.2d 268 (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 4/1/13 opinion was initially issued as NFP, and was reclassified on 5/17/13. The issue: "Whether the Board’s decision not to reappoint Price as Director of Highway Operations was a quasi-judicial decision, which is appealable to the Circuit Court pursuant to IC 36-2-2-27." The COA concluded: the trial court did not err in denying the Board’s motion for summary judgment."
- No arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/4/13):
Monday, November 4th
- 1:15 PM - Eric Rasnick v. State of Indiana (39A01-1211-CR-526) Eric Rasnick and Tamara Campbell burglarized a dorm room occupied by Hanover College students Sarah Lathrop and Christiana Haynes. Both girls observed Rasnick and Campbell in the dormitory lobby moments before they returned to their room and realized certain items had been stolen. They ran out of the dormitory and chased after the car containing Rasnick and Campbell just as it sped away. They then called the police and Rasnick and Campbell were apprehended shortly thereafter. Lathrop and Haynes identified both Rasnick and Campbell in a “show-up” identification procedure. Rasnick was charged with class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft. He filed a motion to suppress the “show-up” identification by Lathrop and Haynes, claiming that it was impermissibly suggestive. He also sought to suppress the evidence seized from the car pursuant to the identification and any evidence that revealed that he was on a Scott County Community Corrections GPS monitoring system at the time of the burglary. The trial court denied his motions and he was found guilty of Class B felony burglary and Class D felony theft. He was ordered to serve an aggregate sentence of thirty-six years. On appeal, Rasnick claims that the trial court erred in denying his motions to suppress because the “show-up” identification was unduly suggestive and, therefore, any evidence obtained pursuant to the identification, as well as the identification itself, must be suppressed. He further argues that the evidence that he was being monitored via GPS tracking was unfairly prejudicial. He also argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and his character. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Kirsch, and, Mathias. [Where: Cathedral High School, 5225 E. 56th Street, Indianapolis, Indiana]
Wednesday, November 6th
- 10:00 AM - Indiana Restorative Dentistry v. The Laven Insurance Agency, et al ( 49A05-1212-PL-627) Appellant-Plaintiff, Indiana Restorative Dentistry, P.C., appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion to correct error following the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendant, ProAssurance Indemnity Co., Inc. f/k/a The Medical Assurance Co., Inc. On October 25, 2009, a fire destroyed the Carmel offices of Indiana Restorative Dentistry, Inc. The office contents were covered under an insurance policy issued by ProAssurance, and obtained through Appellee-Defendant, The Laven Insurance Agency, Inc. The Indiana Restorative Dentistry, P.C.. brought this claim to recover uninsured losses resulting from the fire. Granting summary judgment for ProAssurance, the trial court found that (1) Laven was not under a special duty to advise Indiana Restorative Dentistry about its insurance coverage despite their long-term relationship; (2) there is no factual basis that would support a finding that Laven was under a contractual duty to provide insurance fully covering Indiana Restorative Dentistry’s loss; and (3) ProAssurance cannot he held vicariously liable for Laven’s actions. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Riley and Kirsch. [Where: Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/11/13):
Tuesday, November 12th
- 10:00 AM - Gan North American Insurance Company, et al, vs. Standard Fusee (49A02-1301-PL-91) This insurance coverage case comes before us as an appeal to the trial court’s summary judgment after remand from the Indiana Supreme Court. Our supreme court, applying the uniform-contract-interpretation approach, held that Maryland law was applicable on the Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement included in Gan’s and Chubb’s comprehensive general liability insurance policies. After the trial court issued summary judgment in favor of Standard Fusee, Gan and Chubb appealed. The Appellants present the following issues on appeal: Whether, under Maryland law, the trial court erred in deciding that the Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement in Appellants’ comprehensive general liability insurance policies is not applicable to Standard Fusee’s liability for the accidental release of perchlorate and therefore Appellants’ duty to defend was triggered; Whether the trial court, after establishing Appellants’ duty to defend, properly exercised its discretion to decide Standard Fusee’s defense costs without an evidentiary hearing; and Whether under Maryland law, the trial court’s pro-rate, time-on-the-risk allocation of the damages between Appellants was proper. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Robb, Judges Riley and Kirsch. [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 November 4, 2013 08:34 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments