Monday, November 24, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 11/24/14):
Monday, Nov. 24
- 9:00 AM - Billy Young v. State of Indiana (49A02-1310-CR-868) Young and others were fighting with the victim. Young, who had a gun, handed it to one of the other men involved in the fight, but neither of them shot the gun. A third, unidentified man, then shot and killed the victim. Young was charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. After a bench trial, the Marion Superior Court dismissed the murder and conspiracy to commit murder charges but convicted Young of attempted aggravated battery. See Ind. Code §§ 35-42-2-1.5 (aggravated battery); 35-41-5-1 (attempt). The Court of Appeals reversed in Young v. State, 11 NE3d 964 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. pending. The State of Indiana has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: In a June 12, 2014 opinion, the panel wrote: "Concluding the charging information did not give Young sufficient notice of the crime of which he was convicted, we reverse."
- 9:45 AM - Charles Moore v. State of Indiana (71S00-1405-LW-361) Following a jury trial in the St. Joseph Superior Court, Charles Moore was convicted of robbery, two counts of murder, and two counts of felony murder (robbery). In the penalty phase, the jury recommended a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. This appeal comes directly to the Supreme Court because an LWOP sentence was imposed. See Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(a). Moore argues the evidence in insufficient to support the convictions.
- 10:30 AM - Lora Hoagland v. Franklin Township Community School Corp. (49S02-1410-PL-643) During the 2011-2012 school year, a school corporation discontinued its own bus service and arranged with a vendor to offer bus transportation for students for a fee. Parents then sued the school corporation, alleging among other things that the school’s actions violated Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution. The trial court awarded summary judgment to the school corporation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Hoagland v. Franklin Twp. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 10 N.E.3d 1034 (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 the school bus fees case, the June 10, 2014 COA opinion that looked at the question: "[D]id Franklin Township act unconstitutionally with respect to student transportation? Applying our Supreme Court’s reasoning in Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp., 844 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 2006), we conclude that it did. We affirm in part and reverse in part."
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 12/1/14):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 11/24/14):
Tuesday, November 25
- 1:30 PM - Gilda Orange, et al v. The Honorable Sonya A. Morris (45A03-1310-PL-414) In 2012, Appellants/Defendants Gilda Orange, et al, in their capacities as members of the Common Council of the City of East Chicago, IN (collectively, "the Council"), reduced by $82,000 the 2013 budget of the City Court of the City of East Chicago, IN ("the City Court"), which is presided over by Appellee/Plaintiff the Honorable Sonya A. Morris, Judge. In October 2012, Judge Morris filed a verified complaint in mandamus, seeking an order that the Council fully fund the City Court's requested budget for 2013 and that the Council also pay the City Court's reasonable expenses in prosecuting the action. The Council moved to dismiss Judge Morris's complaint on the ground that it did not go through the Indiana Supreme Court's judicial assignment process as outlined in Indiana Trial Rule 60.5. Special Judge the Honorable George C. Paras was appointed to hear the complaint, denied the Council's motion to dismiss, and held trial. Following trial, the trial court ordered the Council to appropriate $65,000 to fund the City Court ("the Mandate") and for each party to pay its own expenses and attorney's fees. As restated, the Council contends that (1) Judge Morris failed to meet her burden to establish the mandated funds were reasonably necessary to operate the City Court; (2) Judge Morris should have been required to use the judicial appointment process of Trial Rule 60.5; (3) existing probation funds could have cushioned the effect of budgetary cuts; and (4) the Council's appeal is not moot. The City Court counters that (1) the Mandate was necessary to preserve the judicial independence of the City Court; (2) the mandated funds are reasonably necessary to fund court operations; (3) the Council failed to establish that the City Court's budget is excessive or that East Chicago could not fund the budget; and (4) the City Court is entitled to attorney's fees and expenses. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judge Barnes, Bradford and Brown [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- No oral 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 November 24, 2014 08:17 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments