Monday, June 29, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/29/15):
Thursday, July 2
- 9:00 AM - Aadil Ashfaque v. State of Indiana (49S02-1505-CR-288) and Christopher Tiplick v. State of Indiana (49S04-1505-CR-287) In separate cases, the defendants were charged with certain offenses under Indiana’s synthetic drug statutes. Each defendant moved to dismiss the charges on grounds that the statutes are unconstitutionally vague. The Marion Superior Court denied the motions. In separate interlocutory appeals, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, concluding the statutes are unconstitutionally vague based on the definition of “synthetic drug” in Indiana Code section 35-31.5-2-321(9). Ashfaque v. State, 25 N.E.3d 183 Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated; Tiplick v. State, 25 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the cases and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeals. Oral argument in the two appeals is consolidated for purposes of the argument only.
ILB: For much useful background, including last week's decision by the SCOTUS, and a proposal from the 2015 General Assembly, see this ILB post from June 19th.
- 9:45 AM - Christopher Schmidt v. Indiana Insurance Company, C&F Insurance Group, and Bart Stith (22A01-1403-PL-135) Christopher Schmidt obtained insurance for his vacant rental property through insurance agents. When the property was destroyed by fire, the insurance carrier rescinded the policy because the insurance application did not reveal the property’s true condition. Schmidt brought this action against the agents, alleging they falsified the application. The Floyd Superior Court granted summary judgment to the agents, finding Schmidt had not provided evidence that he could have obtained insurance on the property anywhere else. The Court of Appeals reversed. Schmidt v. Ind. Ins. Co., et al., 24 N.E.3d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). The agents have petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a Jan. 14, 2015 opinion (2nd case), concluding "Summary judgment was not proper for Agents because Schmidt designated evidence that gave rise to a genuine issue of material fact. However, as Schmidt did not do so in response to Indiana Insurance’s motion for summary judgment, summary judgment for Indiana Insurance was proper."
- 10:30 AM - Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of V.A.; A.A. v. Indiana Departement of Child Services (02A04-1405-JT-233) The Allen Superior Court terminated father’s parental rights after determining father was unwilling or unable protect child from mother, who suffered from mental illness. Mother’s rights were terminated in the same proceeding. Father appealed the termination of his rights and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In re V.A., No. 02A04-1405-JT-233 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2014) (Mem. Dec.). Father has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This argument originally had been set for June 1st. This was a 2-1, NFP Feb. 10, 2015 COA opinion.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 7/6/15):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 6/29/15):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 7/6/15):
Tuesday, July 7
- 1:00 PM - BGC v. Burchanan (49A05-1408-CT-373) On July 29, 2007, following her shift as a cocktail waitress at Brad's Gold Club in Indianapolis, IN, Candice Vowell struck a pedestrian, Jerry Coleman Buchanan, with her vehicle. After it was determined that Vowell had consumed alcohol at Brad's Gold Club, Buchanan sought to hold Brad's Gold Club liable under both the Dram Shop Act and common-law negligence. The Dram Shop Act precludes civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages unless the person who furnished the alcoholic beverage had actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time. Buchanan filed a motion for partial summary judgment, alleging that Vowell's knowledge of her own intoxication should be imputed to Brad's Gold Club as her employer. Brad's Gold Club, however, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting that the evidence indisputably establishes that Vowell was not visibly intoxicated when Brad's Gold Club furnished her a drink at the end of her shift. On appeal, the parties dispute the applicability of the Dram Shop Act versus common-law negligence and the proof required for each. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Bailey and Barnes. [Where: Court of Appeals courtroom (WEBCAST)]
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 June 29, 2015 07:47 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments