Monday, October 27, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 10/27/14):
Thursday, Oct. 30
- 9:00 AM - State of Indiana v. International Business Machines Corporation (49S02-1408-PL-513) The State and IBM sued one another for breach of contract following the termination of a contract intended to modernize and improve Indiana’s system for administering welfare benefits. After several partial summary judgment rulings and a six-week bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of IBM and against the State and awarded IBM some, but not all, of the damages IBM had sought. On cross-appeals, a divided Court of Appeals panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. State v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp, 4 N.E.3d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
- 9:45 AM - Roy Bell v. State of Indiana (25S00-1310-LW-713) Bell was convicted of murder and burglary following a bench trial in the Fulton Superior Court, and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole pursuant to the parties’ agreement. In this direct appeal, Bell argues the evidence was insufficient to support the murder conviction.
Thursday, Nov. 6
- 9:00 AM - Stephen Robertson v. The Medical Assurance Co. (94S00-1406-CQ-378) Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 64, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana certified the following question of Indiana law for the Indiana Supreme Court’s consideration, which the Indiana Supreme Court accepted on June 30, 2014. The question, as framed by the federal court, is:
Does Indiana law allow the Patient’s Compensation Fund to pursue a claim against an insurer for the insurer’s breach of its duty of good faith to its insured, through the doctrine of equitable subrogation?
- 9:45 AM - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Kimberly Earl (36S05-1408-CT-562) After a $250,000 jury verdict in favor of Earl on her uninsured motorist claim against State Farm, the Jackson Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of Earl. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of the $250,000 limit in Earl’s policy with State Farm, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Earl, 3 N.E.3d 1009 (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 Jan. 24th, 2-1 opinion where the majority wrote:
In this case, we are presented with an issue of first impression in Indiana. More particularly, appellant-defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) asks us to join other states that have determined Uninsured Motorist (UM) insurance limits to be inadmissible. * * * State Farm contends that evidence of the bodily injury limit was both irrelevant and prejudicial. Determining that evidence of the bodily injury limit was in fact both irrelevant and prejudicial, we reverse and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- 10:30 AM - Jeffrey A. Weisheit v. State of Indiana (10S00-1307-DP-492) Weisheit was convicted of two murders and of arson and sentenced to death on the jury’s unanimous recommendation. The Clark Circuit Court sentenced Weisheit accordingly. In this direct criminal appeal, Weisheit argues various errors occurred during trial and at sentencing.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 10/27/14):
Wednesday, Oct. 29
- 1:00 PM - Gentry v. Bloomquist (32A01-1406-CT-226) In May 2012, eighteen-year-old Sean Bloomquist (“Bloomquist”) hosted a party at his father’s home. Bloomquist’s father and stepmother were not at home and were unaware of the party. Bloomquist, eighteen-year-old Nathan Gentry (“Nathan”), and a third teenager gave money to nineteen-year-old Dustin Stamm (“Stamm”) to purchase alcohol. Stamm went by himself to purchase the alcohol and returned to Bloomquist’s home with a case of beer, which was kept in Stamm’s open car trunk during the party. According to seventeen-year-old party guest Christopher Hubbard (“Hubbard”), the beer was already there when he arrived, and Bloomquist told him that he could have some. Hubbard drank some beer, went to bed in Bloomquist’s home between 12:00 and 2:00 a.m., and awoke at 8:00 the next morning. Half an hour later, as Hubbard was driving Nathan and others to another partygoer’s softball practice, his car left the road and hit a tree. Nathan died as a result of the collision. Nathan’s father, Albert C. Gentry, II (“Gentry”), filed a complaint for damages against Bloomquist and others. The complaint alleged that Bloomquist was civilly liable because he violated Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-7-8, which makes it unlawful for a person to “recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally sell, barter, exchange, provide, or furnish an alcoholic beverage to a minor,” as well as Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-10-15, which makes it unlawful for a person to sell, barter, deliver, or give away an alcoholic beverage to another person who he knows is intoxicated. Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-10-15.5 defines “furnish” as including “barter, deliver, sell, exchange, provide, or give away.” Bloomquist filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that he did not “furnish” an alcoholic beverage to Hubbard. The trial court granted Bloomquist’s motion. On appeal, Gentry contends that the trial court erred in granting Bloomquist’s summary judgment motion because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether Bloomquist “furnished” an alcoholic beverage to Hubbard. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Barnes and Crone. [Where: Notre Dame Law School, 1100 Eck Hall, Notre Dame, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/3/14):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
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 October 27, 2014 07:30 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments