« Ind. Gov't. - "Ticketing students in South Bend schools: Poorer schools see majority of citations, some given to kids as young as 10" | Main | Catch-up: What did you miss over the weekend from the ILB? »
Monday, August 25, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/25/14):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/1/14):
Thursday, Sept. 4
- 9:00 AM - Gregory Zoeller, et al. v. James Sweeney, et al. (45S00-1309-PL-596) Sweeney and others (collectively "the Union") filed a complaint in the Lake Superior Court against the Attorney General and the Labor Department Commissioner (collectively "the State") seeking a declaratory judgment that Indiana's "right-to-work law” violated several provisions of the state constitution. The State moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled that two provisions, Indiana Code sections 22-6-6-8 and -10, violate Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution because they demand particular services from unions without just compensation, and entered a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the State's motion as to the remaining counts and dismissed them. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this direct appeal (civil) because the trial court declared a state statute unconstitutional. See Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b).
ILB: This is the Right to Work Law challenge. This is the challenge to the J.Sedia opinion. For background and copies to the documents, see this Aug. 20th ILB post and its links, and this Aug. 24th ILB post.
- 9:45 AM - Ruben Rosales v. State of Indiana (48S02-1404-CR-297) Rosales was convicted of attempted murder following a jury trial in the Madison Circuit Court. Without objection, the instruction on attempted murder referred to “specific intent,” but the instruction on accomplice liability did not. Rejecting the argument that the accomplice liability instruction constituted “fundamental error,” a divided Court of Appeals affirmed in Rosales v. State, 3 N.E.3d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a 2-1, Jan. 27, 2014 COA opinion where the majority and dissent wrote, respectively:
As we have already noted, not every Spradlin claim amounts to fundamental error. The fundamental error exception is available only in “egregious circumstances.” Id. The record shows that Rosales was fairly tried and convicted. Affirmed.
It is undisputed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on accomplice liability, and it is also undisputed that the record is silent regarding whether the jury found Rosales guilty of attempted murder as an accomplice or as a principal. Relying on Thomas, the majority concludes that the error was not fundamental. I respectfully disagree.
- 10:30 AM - Shawn Blount v. State of Indiana (49S02-1405-CR-338) Blount was charged with possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. At the jury trial in the Marion Superior Court, a detective was allowed to testify that witnesses supplied him with the nickname of the person they believed fired the gun. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction deciding that the “course-of-investigation” testimony was inadmissible hearsay. Blount v. State, 4 N.E.3d 787 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 2-1 Feb. 24, 2014 opinion where the issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay evidence (when it allowed Detective Smith’s testimony concerning what Brock and her son told him as to their belief about who fired the gun). The COA ruled it was inadmissible hearsay.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/25/14):
Tuesday, August 26
- 10:00 AM - Wesco v. Arcelormittal (45A03-1307-PL-274) Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC ("Mittal") operates a steelmaking plant in northwestern Indiana. On April 28, 2006, an overhead crane at the plant malfunctioned and spilled a load of molten iron that caused a fire that damaged Mittal's property. Mittal sued WESCO for breach of warranty, alleging that WESCO sold it defective parts that caused the malfunction. A jury returned a verdict for Mittal in an amount in excess of $36 million. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest and costs and entered a final judgment in the amount of $39,031,555.96. WESCO appeals the judgment, alleging the trial court committed reversible error by failing to grant WESCO summary judgment; entering a discovery order protecting materials pertinent to an insurance investigation; admitting certain expert testimony; excluding evidence regarding remedial measures by Mittal; submitting an allegedly erroneous instruction; failing to sanction Mittal for alleged spoiliation of evidence; and awarding prejudgment interest.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Robb and Bradford.
[Where:Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - Getrag KG v. Walbridge Aldinger Company (80A02-1310-CC-860) Walbridge alleges that Getrag KG hired it to construct this plant, but, in late 2008, Getrag KG ordered Walbridge to stop construction and refused to pay Walbridge more than $35 million in expenses that Walbridge had incurred. Attached to Walbridge’s complaint were numerous purchase orders, each of which states that the parties shall abide by certain terms and conditions. Among these terms and conditions is a requirement that any disputes between the parties be resolved in Germany and pursuant to German law. As such, Getrag KG moved to dismiss Walbridge’s complaint. The trial court denied Getrag KG’s motion pursuant to Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-17, which declares “void” any “provision in a contract for the improvement of real estate in Indiana” that “makes the contract subject to the laws of another state” or “requires litigation . . . on the contract occur in another state.” On appeal, Getrag KG asserts that the terms and conditions are binding under Indiana law, that Indiana Code Section 32-28-3-17 does not apply on these facts, and that, if it did apply, the statute would be preempted by the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Najam and Brown. [Where:Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/1/14):
Thursday, Sept. 4
- 11:00 AM - Allen v. Hinchman, et. al. (49A02-1311-PL-975) In this case, Christa Allen appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Richard Hinchman, M.D., Richard Tanner, M.D., and Jeffrey Smith, M.D. Allen maintains that the trial court incorrectly determined that medical professionals are held to a lower standard of care when treating incarcerated persons. Additionally, Allen argues that prisoners with Gender Identity Disorder are entitled to medical care to maintain ongoing treatment when such care is of slight or no expense to the Satate and creates no security deficit. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Kirsch and Robb. [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. [Note: This may be changing...]
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 August 25, 2014 08:43 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments