Monday, January 05, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 1/5/15):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 1/12/15):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/5/15):
Thursday, January 8
- 1:30 PM - Ind. Education Employment Relations Board v. Nettle Creek Classroom Teachers Assn. (49A02-1402-PL-78) After collective bargaining failed, Appellant Indiana Education Employment Relations Board (the "Board") issued a decision in which it set forth an employment agreement between Nettle Creek School Corporation and Appellee Nettle Creek Classroom Teachers Association (the "Association") for the 2011-2012 school year. The Association sought judicial review of the Board's decision. The trial court reversed the Board's decision and remanded the matter to the Board with instructions to enter an order consistent with the trial court's order. The Board subsequently initiated the instant review, claiming that the trial court erred in reversing certain portions of its decision. Specifically, the Board argues that it correctly determined that the parties' proffered provisions indicated that the parties had improperly bargained the number of hours that teachers would be expected to work each day and that the Association's proffered provision at issue created an overtime compensation system that is inconsistent with Federal and Indiana law. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Mathias and Bradford. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:30 PM - Ozuyener v. Ozuyener (49A02-1404-DR-238) Appellant Nina Ozuyener appeals the trial court's order on the validity of a Post Nuptial Agreement entered into by Appellant and her husband Appellee Korkut Ozuyener. The trial court determined that the agreement was invalid and unenforceable based on a lack of full disclosure to husband about the nature of the agreement. Appellant argues that Appellee was fully informed of the nature of the agreement and the trial court erred when it found otherwise. Appellee argues that even if he was aware of the nature of the agreement, the agreement is unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Mathias and Bradford. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/12/15):
Monday, January 12
- 1:30 PM - Mid-America Sound, et al v. Polet, et al (49A02-1404-CT-288) The Indiana State Fair Commission leased equipment from Mid-America Sound for a concert in 2011 where the stage collapsed, causing injuries and fatalities. A number of plaintiffs sued the Commission, Mid-America and others. Mid-America sought indemnification from the State pursuant to the terms of its invoices, which had included indemnification provisions since 2003, but the trial court denied its motion for summary judgment on that issue and granted the Commission's cross-motion. The State argues the provision at issue here was "slipped onto" an invoice after the stage collapse, and is invalid because it is inconsistent with the State's sovereign immunity. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Friedlander and May. [Where: Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - Garcia v. State (49A05-1402-CR-61) This criminal appeal invokes the protection against unreasonable search and seizure provided in Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Antonio Garcia appeals his conviction for class D felony possession of a schedule III controlled substance (a hydrocodone/acetaminophen pill). The police found the pill through a patdown search performed incident to to Garcia's arrest for class C misdemeanor driving without a license. During the search, the police removed a small metallic cylinder from Garcia's pants pocket, opened it and found the pill. On appeal, Garcia contends that his conviction must be reversed because the search of the cylinder violated Article 1, Section 11. Garcia does not challenge the lawfulness of his arrest or the search of his person incident to that arrest. Rather, he argues that it was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution for the police to open the container because (1) Hoosiers would regard the contents of the pill container as private and (2) given that he was being arrested for driving without a license, and that the police officer recognized the cylinder as a container for pills, the needs of law enforcement to determine the contents of the cylinder were low. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Mathias, Crone and Bradford. and Bradford. [Where: Indiana University McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis]
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 January 5, 2015 10:03 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments