« Ind. Gov't. - Civil asset forfeiture back in the Indiana news, but it has continued to be a topic at the national level (and in the ILB) [Updated] | Main | Catch-up: What did you miss over the weekend from the ILB? »
Monday, February 23, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 2/23/15):
Thursday, Feb. 26
- 9:00 AM - Andrew Satterfield v. State of Indiana (63S00-1401-LW-306) Andrew Satterfield admitted killing his mother and setting her house on fire. He defended on grounds he was not responsible by reason of insanity. The jury rejected the insanity defense, and found Satterfield “guilty” of murder and arson. In the penalty phase, the jury recommended a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and the Pike Circuit Court sentenced Satterfield accordingly. In this direct appeal, Satterfield raises issues relating to conduct of the trial and the sentence.
- 9:45 AM - David J. Markey v. Estate of Frances S. Markey (89S05-1412-ES-749) David Markey filed a complaint against his stepmother's estate and her children, alleging the stepmother had breached a contract with David's father to make mutual wills providing the last to survive would divide the estate equally between David and the stepmother's granddaughter. The Wayne Superior Court found David's action was untimely and entered summary judgment for the stepmother's children. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding David had to file his petition within three months of the admission of the will to probate. Markey v. Estate of Markey, 13 N.E.3d 453 (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 July 9th COA opinion; see ILB summary here (2nd case). The COA: "In this case we are asked to clarify the time limit within which an action for a breach of contract to make a will must be filed."
- 10:30 AM - Blake Layman & Levi Sparks v. State of Indiana (20A04-1310-CR-518); Anthony Sharp, Jr. v. State of Indiana (20A04-1310-CR-501) Appellants and two other teenagers participated in a burglary of a house chosen because they thought the owner was not home. One of the teenagers was shot and killed by the homeowner. Following a jury trial in the Elkhart Circuit Court, the appellants were convicted under Indiana’s felony murder statute, Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1. The convictions were affirmed in Layman v. State, 17 N.E.3d 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), transfer pending and Sharp v. State, 16 N.E.3d 470 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), transfer pending. Appellants have petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: These are "Elkhart 4" defendants. The Court has informed the parties that it is particularly interested in argument on issues relating to application of Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1, the felony murder statute, to this case. The ILB has earlier posted the transfer petitions and responses.
- 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 2/23/15):
Thursday, February 26
- 10:00 AM - NIPSCO Industrial Group and IN Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., et al (93A02-1403-EX-158) In this consolidated appeal, the Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor ("OUCC") and NIPSCO Industrial Group ("Industrial Group") appeal the decision of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission ("Commission") regarding two petitions filed by Northern Indiana Public Service Company ("NIPSCO"). This is the first appeal that addresses Indiana Code Chapter 8-1-39, which was enacted in 2013 and is referred to as the "TDSIC" statute. The TDSIC statute allows a utility to implement rate "trackers" for investments in transmission, distribution, and storage system improvements. NIPSCO's petitions concerned proposed improvements to its systems of more than $1 billion. The Commission approved NIPSCO's petitions. On appeal, the OUCC argues that: (1) the Commission erred by allowing NIPSCO to continue rate recovery of retired equipment while also recovering costs for replacement assets; and (2) the Commission erred by approving NIPSCO's proposed rate allocation methodology. The Industrial Group argues that: (1) the Commission erred by allowing NIPSCO to specifically identify the proposed projects for only the first year of the seven-year plan and by establishing a presumption that the proposed projects for years two through seven of the seven-year plan were eligible for special ratemaking treatment; and (2) the Commission erred by approving costs in excess of a statutory cap on aggregate increases. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges May, Barnes and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 12:00 PM - Alvarez v. Horizon Bank, N.A. (46A03-1404-CC-129) Kelly Alvarez (Galanos) appeals the denial of her motion to dismiss Horizon Bank's claim against her for lack of jurisdiction and the grant of summary judgment in favor of Horizon Bank. She argues the promissory note on which Horizon's claim is premised emanates from the divorce decree with her ex-husband, George Galanos, and thus is in the jurisdiction of the court that issued the divorce, not the civil court in which Horizon filed a claim against her. Alvarez argues summary judgment is improper due to lack of jurisdiction as well. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judge Riley, May and Robb. [Where: Culver Cove Resort & Conference Center, Culver, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/2/15):
Friday, March 5
- 1:00 PM - Devereaux v. Love and Love (49A02-1404-CT-260) The instant matter involves questions relating to the duty owed to clients of a law firm when one of the clients' counsel of record resigns from his employment from the firm over concerns about potential ethical violations that may have been committed by his co-counsel. On appeal, Appellant-Defendant Timothy Devereaux and Appellees-Plaintiffs Jim and Diana Love challenge the trial court's order denying each of their competing motions for summary judgment. Specifically, the parties challenge the trial court's determination that an issue of material fact exists as to whether Devereaux, in his prior position as counsel of record for the Loves, breached a duty owed to the Loves when he resigned from his employment at the law firm representing the Loves without notifying the Loves of his concerns relating to potential ethical violations committed by and the honesty and trustworthiness of the Loves' remaining counsel at the firm. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb and Bradford. [Where: Indiana State University, Terre Haute]
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 February 23, 2015 08:22 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments