Monday, March 16, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 3/16/15):
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.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 3/23/15):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
This 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]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/23/15):
Monday, March 23
- 1:00 PM - Hunt v. State (---------) In November 2013, Jeffery Hunt and his father broke into the Elkhart home of an elderly couple, Don and Joan Neer. Hunt struck Don Neer on the head and body several times using a tire iron and his fists, causing Mr. Neer serious injury. Hunt and his father then looted the house, stealing among other things, guns, a television, and cash. Hunt eventually pleaded guilty to Class A felony robbery while armed with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury, Class A felony burglary, Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary, and Class B felony criminal confinement. Hunt was sentenced to 50 years per Class A felony conviction and 20 years per Class B felony conviction, concurrent or consecutive, for a total of 120 years in the Department of Correction. The trial court found Hunt's criminal history, the age of the victims, the severity of Mr. Neer's injuries, and the egregiousness of the crime to be aggravating factors and the fact that Hunt accepted responsibility for his crime and showed remorse to be mitigating factors. Hunt appeals and argues that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May and Mathias. [Where: Huntington University, Zurcher Auditorium/Merillat Centre for the Arts, Huntington, IN ]
Thursday, March 12
- 1:00 PM - In Re: The Guardianship of Sharon Izzo (53A05-1407-GU-320) In February of 2014, Indiana Adult Protective Services filed a verified petition for a guardianship over the person and estate of an incapacitated person, that person being 77-year-old Appellant Sharon Izzo. The trial court appointed both a guardian ad litem and a temporary guardian for Izzo after a first hearing, and then held a second hearing. At the second hearing, the trial court heard evidence that Izzo had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, frontal lobe dysfunction, and mild dementia. The trial court also heard evidence that Izzo was unable to make appropriate personal and financial decisions. After the second hearing, the trial court appointed Elizabeth Ruh as guardian of Izzo's person and estate. Izzo claims on appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the trial court's findings that she was incapacitated and a guardianship was necessary. Appellee the State of Indiana contends that sufficient evidence was presented to support the trial court's judgment. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb and Bradford. [Where: Ivy Tech/Lafayette, Ivy Hall, 1301 Creasy Lane, Lafayette, IN]
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 March 16, 2015 08:15 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments