Monday, February 03, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 2/3/14):
Monday, February 3
- 9:00 AM - Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc., v. Bridgewater (93S02-1310-EX-704) Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Society, Inc. ("FACES") provided enrichment opportunities to the homeschooled children of its member families. One family, the Bridgewaters, filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission ("ICRC") alleging FACES discriminated against their daughter by failing to accommodate her medical disability at a FACES sponsored dinner-dance. Thereafter, FACES expelled the Bridgewaters. The ICRC concluded that although FACES did not fail to accommodate the daughter's disability, it did commit unlawful discrimination by expelling the Bridgewaters in retaliation for their filing the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, in part: Fishers Adolescent Catholic Enrichment Soc'y Inc. v. Bridgewater, 990 N.E.2d 29 (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 May 29th COA opinion where the COA held: "We conclude that the nature and features of FACES make the organization sufficiently related to education such that the ICRC’s jurisdiction is proper, and we uphold the ALJ’s conclusions, with one exception. We find the ALJ’s order that FACES post its decision on all websites on which they communicated information regarding the case to be unconstitutional compelled speech, and we reverse this portion of the order. We affirm in part and reverse in part."
- 9:45 AM - Douglas A. Guilmette v. State of Indiana (71S04-1310-R-705) When Guilmette was arrested for theft, police saw what they believed to be blood on his shoes, and without obtaining a search warrant, they sent the shoes for DNA testing. Guilmette was later charged with murder, and the test results were admitted at trial. Guilmette was found guilty of theft and murder. The Court of Appeals held that testing the shoe, taken incident to the theft arrest but used as evidence of the murder, was an unconstitutional search, but that given the other evidence in the case, the erroneous admission of the DNA evidence was harmless error. Guilmette v. State, 986 N.E.2d 335 (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 an April 22nd COA opinion that concluded:
Guilmette contends that the trial court admitted the DNA evidence recovered from his shoe in violation of Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Specifically, he argues that the shoe, taken incident to his theft arrest, was unconstitutionally searched for evidence of the murder. * * * The DNA evidence from the shoe was not the strongest evidence of guilt. It merely consisted of testimony that a small stain on Guilmette’s shoelace tested presumptively for blood and that subsequent DNA testing gave a mixture from which both Piechocki and Guilmette could not be excluded. Moreover, the testimony of four separate and independent witnesses that Guilmette admitted killing Piechocki with a baseball bat constituted overwhelming substantial independent evidence of guilt. Thus, the erroneous admission of the DNA evidence from the shoe was harmless.
- 10:30 AM - Gayle Fischer v. Michael Heymann, et al. (49S02-1309-PL-620) After the defendants were found to have breached their contract with the plaintiff, the Marion Superior Court awarded the plaintiff $93,972.18 in damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court’s findings do not support that award, and remanded with instructions to award the plaintiff $117 in damages, plus attorney’s fees commensurate with that recovery, and costs. Fischer v. Heymann, 994 N.E.2d 1151 (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 June 7, 2013, 2-1 COA opinion, involving mitigation of damages.
Thursday, February 6
- 9:00 AM - McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana (45S03-1309-CR-597) While Bond was under arrest on an unrelated charge, a Gary police detective questioned Bond about a murder. The detective told Bond it was unlikely anyone from his “part of the hood” would be on his jury. During the interview, Bond confessed to the murder. Prior to trial on the murder charge, Bond moved to suppress the interview contending that his confession had been involuntary. The Lake Superior Court “strongly discouraged” police from telling defendants they could not receive a fair and impartial jury due to location of the courthouse, but denied the motion to suppress. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed in Bond v. State, No. 45A03-1205-CR-212 (Ind. Ct. App. May 31, 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 is a May 31, 2013, 2-1 NFP COA opinion dealing with police conduct. From the dissent: "Yet each time courts allow such conduct, they implicitly sanction it and encourage the next police officer in the next interrogation to go a bit further, to be more offensive, more racist and more deceptive."
- 9:45 AM - Caterpillar, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (49T10-0812-TA-70) In calculating its net operating losses, Caterpillar, Inc., deducted foreign source dividend income and carried back unused losses to prior tax years. The Indiana Department of State Revenue recalculated Caterpillar's net operating losses by adding back the foreign source dividend income and denied Caterpillar's protest. The Tax Court granted summary judgment to Caterpillar. Caterpillar Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 988 N.E.2d 1269 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013). The Department of Revenue has petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
ILB: This is March 28th Tax Court opinion, holding:
This matter concerns the proper calculation of Indiana net operating losses (NOLs) available for carryover when a corporation receives dividend income from its foreign subsidiaries (Foreign Source Dividends or FSDs). Caterpillar, Inc. and the Indiana Department of State Revenue are currently before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. While the parties offer several reasons to support their positions, the dispositive issue is whether Caterpillar’s FSDs are deductible in calculating its Indiana NOLs, including those available for carryover as a deduction from taxable income in future years under Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.6.1 The Court finds that they are.
- 10:30 AM - Larry R. David, II v. William Kleckner, M.D. (49A02-1301-MI-13) When the defendant sought summary judgment on grounds that the Medical Malpractice Act’s two-year statute of limitations bars the plaintiff’s complaint, the Marion Superior Court granted the defendant summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court properly found that statute of limitations bars the malpractice claim and that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not prevent the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations. David v. Kleckner, No. 49A02-1301-MI-13 (Ind. Ct. App. June 14, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.). The plaintiff has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a June 14th decision that held: "The trial court properly found that the Estate’s medical malpractice claim against Dr. Kleckner was barred by the statute of limitations. Further, the trial court properly found that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not bar Dr. Kleckner from asserting the statute of limitations defense. The trial court properly granted Dr. Kleckner’s motion for summary judgment."
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 2/3/14):
Monday, February 3
- 10:00 AM - Robin Harper v. State of Indiana (49A04-1305-CR-222) Harper appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The trial court found that the responding officer “used a ruse in his conversations with” Harper and, when Harper opened her door to the officer as a result of that ruse, the officer arrested Harper and handcuffed her. Harper argues that because of the ruse used by the officer, the officer was not “lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties” when she twisted away from the officer shortly thereafter as he attempted to remove her wedding ring prior to transporting her for booking, where accused criminals are allowed no personal jewelry. Harper’s conduct resulted in a charge of and conviction for resisting law enforcement. Harper was sentenced to 365 days, with credit for time served as a result of her conviction and the remainder of her sentence was suspended. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Mathias, Bradford, and Pyle. [Where: Fishers High School Auditorium, 13000 Promise Road, Fishers]
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 February 3, 2014 08:47 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments