Monday, March 09, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 3/9/15):
Wednesday, March 11
- 9:00 AM - Peter Griffith v. State of Indiana (48S02-1501-CR-10) On trial for battery by means of a deadly weapon, Griffith presented evidence of self-defense. However, the Madison Circuit Court ruled Griffith could not call two witnesses who would have testified that the victim said he had hit Griffith. A majority of the Court of Appeals panel affirmed in Griffith v. State, 18 N.E.3d 625 (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 2-1 Sept. 30, 2014 COA opinion (5th case), relating to the interpretation of Evidence Rule 613(b).
- 9:45 AM - James Giles, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Rule Giles, Deceased v. Anonymous Physician I, Anonymous Corporation I, Anonymous Hospital I, et al. (03A01-1306-CT-257) After the patient's estate filed a medical malpractice action, Physician I filed a motion for summary judgment on grounds he did not treat the patient or have a physician-patient relationship with her. The Bartholomew Superior Court entered summary judgment for Physician I. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Giles v. Anonymous Physician I, 13 N.E.3d 504 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). The patient's estate has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a July 21, 2014 COA opinion, where the Court wrote:
This appeal involves a preliminary determination in a medical malpractice case filed in the county court while the case was pending before the Indiana Department of Insurance (“IDOI”). Anonymous Physician I (“Hospitalist”) and Anonymous Corporation I (“Medical Corporation”)—after being sued by James Giles (“Giles”), individually and as executor of the estate of Ruth Giles, deceased (“Ruth”)—moved for summary judgment on the basis that Hospitalist owed no duty to Ruth because he did not treat her or have a physician-patient relationship with her. Giles now appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Hospitalist and Medical Corporation. We affirm.
Monday, March 16
- 10:00 AM - In re: the Adoption of W.B. and I.B.; B.B. v. B.C. and J.L. (82S05-1502-AD-63) IC 31-19-11-1(c) prohibits certain convicted felons from adopting children. Maternal grandmother and her fiancé, both convicted felons, petitioned to adopt maternal grandmother’s minor grandchildren. The children’s paternal grandmother objected and filed her own petition to adopt the children. The Vanderburgh Superior Court granted maternal grandmother’s and fiancé’s petition and denied paternal grandmother’s petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In re the Adoption of I.B. and W.B., 19 N.E.3d 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme court has granted the petition to transfer and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: The COA decision (2nd case) on Oct. 28, 2014, concluded: "The sum of Appellant’s claim appears to be that DCS’s failure to fully investigate placement with her resulted in a denial of due process. She provides no relevant authority in support, and we find her vague assertion of a due process violation unavailing."
- 9:00 AM - Jason Dague v. State of Indiana (01S05-1502-CR-62) After the State filed a second notice of probation violation, the Adams Circuit Court revoked Dague’s probation, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in Dague v. State, No. 01A05-1406-CR-250 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2014) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 11/12/14 NFP COA opinion that included:
Dague contends that the trial court denied him due process when it denied his motion for continuance and refused to allow him to present evidence regarding alternate dispositions, and that even if neither of the two alleged errors are reversible error, together they warrant reversal. We affirm. * * * At no point following the trial court’s decision not to allow further testimony from Dague does Dague object to the exclusion or affirmatively request the opportunity to make an offer of proof. It was Dague’s obligation to make a record supporting his claim of error, and he failed to do so. Dague has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/9/15):
Thursday, March 12
- 6:30 PM - Marsh v. State (82A01-1405-CR-233) In this case, Marsh appeals his conviction for murder, arguing that the trial court committed fundamental error when it admitted into evidence a video of Marsh's interview with the police. Marsh believes that the video contained impermissible hearsay and that, because the hearsay was also testimonial in nature, its introduction violated his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Riley and Robb. [Where: Culver Academies (Legion Memorial Building) Culver, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/16/15):
Wednesday, March 18
- 11:00 AM - Think Tank Software v. Chester, Inc., et al (64A03-1404-PL-134) Think Tank Networking Technologies Group and Think Tank Information Systems (Think Tank) appeal the trial court's grant of a directed verdict in favor of Defendants-Appellees on Think Tank's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. Think Tank argues that the trial court incorrectly determined that it did not possess trade secrets as a matter of law, which Think Tank maintains is contrary to the law of the case. Think Tank also appeals the trial court's determination that its non-solicitation claim was barred.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May and Sr. Judge Shepard. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - Winters v. City of Evansville (----------) In May 2013, Mike Winters was a corporal on the Evansville Police Department with approximately 31 years of service. He also worked in the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation's Academy for Innovative Studies. On May 16, 2013, while working at the Academy, Winters entered a classroom to calm unruly students serving in-school suspension. The students started talking about fighting, and Winters tried to change the subject. When one of the students said that he would fight someone smaller than himself, Winters briefly grabbed the student's crotch and asked, "What would you do now?" Based on this incident, the Department's chief issued a personnel order recommending that Winters be suspended without pay for 21 days and then terminated from employment. Winters appealed this recommendation and requested a hearing before the City of Evansville's Police Merit Commission. After the hearing, the Commission found Winters guilty on seven of eight counts alleged in the personnel order and voted 2-1 to affirm the recommended suspension and termination. Winters filed a complaint against the City appealing the Commission's decision. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. On appeal, Winters argues that the Commission's decision to terminate his employment was arbitrary and capricious and lacked substantial supporting evidence. Winters also argues that the Commission members were biased, terminated him based on facts outside the record and denied him due process. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Robb, Crone and Bradford. [Where: Walden Inn & Conference Center 2 W. Cemetery St., Greencastle, IN]
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 March 9, 2015 08:40 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments