Monday, November 25, 2013
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/25/13):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 12/2/13):
Thursday, December 5th
- 9:00 AM - Virginia E. Alldredge v. The Good Samaritan Home (82S01-1305-CT-363) - The Vanderburgh Superior Court dismissed this wrongful death action as untimely, concluding the estate filed the complaint after the two-year limitation period expired, and although the doctrine of fraudulent concealment applied, the estate failed to file the complaint within a reasonable time after discovering the action. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the estate had a full two years after discovery of the concealment to file a complaint. Alldredge v. Good Samaritan Home, Inc., 982 N.E.2d 378 (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 1/31/13 COA opinion (4th case) that begins: "In this case, we consider an issue of first impression, namely, whether and to what extent the doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolls the two-year deadline for filing claims contained within Indiana’s Wrongful Death Act."
- 9:45 AM - David Bleeke v. State of Indiana (02S05-1305-PL-364) - Parolee David Bleeke brought an action challenging several conditions of his parole. The trial court enjoined the Parole Board from enforcing certain conditions that prevented Bleeke from associating with his own family, but in all other respects entered summary judgment for the Board. On Bleeke’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the various challenged conditions are unconstitutional or otherwise infirm. Bleeke v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1040 (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 1/23/13 COA opinion, concluding "The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Parole Board. Further, it erred in denying Bleeke’s motion for summary judgment."
- 10:30 AM - State of Indiana v. I.T. (20S03-1309-JV-583) - I.T. was adjudicated delinquent and placed on probation for an act that would constitute child molesting if committed by an adult. As part of his probation, I.T. was required to participate in a treatment program and submit to polygraphs. During one of these polygraphs, I.T. disclosed additional acts of molestation against other children. The State sought to file a new delinquency petition against I.T. based on these newly-disclosed acts. The juvenile court entered an order effectively barring the State from pursuing a new petition. The Court of Appeals dismissed the State’s appeal, holding sua sponte that the State lacked the statutory right to appeal. State v. I.T., 986 N.E.2d 280 (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 was a 3/20/13 opinion, concluding:
The State appeals from the juvenile court’s order rescinding its prior approval of a delinquency petition filed against I.T. Concluding sua sponte that the State is without authority to appeal a juvenile court’s order withdrawing its approval of the filing of a delinquency petition, we dismiss. * * * Because we conclude that the juvenile court’s order was not “an order granting a motion to dismiss an indictment or information” for the purposes of I.C. § 35-38-4-2(1), we conclude that the State has no statutory right to appeal in this case, regardless of the merits of the juvenile court’s ruling. We therefore dismiss the State’s appeal.
This 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.
- 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 November 25, 2013 07:56 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments