Monday, August 18, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next [Updated]
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/18/14):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 8/25/14):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 8/18/14):
Wednesday, August 20
- 10:00 AM - State Farm v. Radcliff (29A04-1311-CT-542) This largest defamation verdict in Indiana’s history is once again before this court as an appeal to the trial court’s denial of State Farm’s Trial Rule 60(B) motion. In its T.R. 60(B) motion, State Farm requested the trial court to grant a new trial on the limited issue of defamation based on State Farm’s discovery of new evidence purportedly establishing that Radcliff had procured the verdict by committing fraud on the court. In its appeal, State Farm presents this court with four procedural issues which we restate as follows:
1. Characterizing its T.R. 60(B) motion as solely a T.R. 60(B)(3) motion based on fraud and misconduct, State Farm asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by interpreting its T.R. 60(B) motion as a T.R. 60(B)(2) motion based on newly discovered evidence and applying T.R. 60(B)(2)’s requirements to its T.R. 60(B)(3) motion.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that State Farm’s T.R. 60(B)(3) motion was barred by the law of the case due to this court’s denial of State Farm’s Appellate Rule 37 motion for remand in the first appeal where this court addressed State Farm’s request for alternative relief based on “waiver notwithstanding” and our supreme court subsequently denied State Farm’s request for emergency relief based on its T.R. 60(B) motion.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying State Farm’s T.R. 60(B) motion as a matter of law.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in declining to allow State Farm to engage in further protracted discovery pursuant to T.R. 60(D) and in ruling on the motion without an evidentiary hearing when Radcliff elected to respond to State Farm’s T.R. 60(B) motion on legal grounds as opposed to factual grounds and therefore no further pertinent evidence would need to be submitted to the trial court to aid in its ruling. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb and Bradford. [Where: Room 431, Statehouse (WEBCAST)]
Next 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)]
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 August 18, 2014 07:50 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments