« Courts - "Scientists constantly test their hypotheses against an ever-expanding body of knowledge. . . . Is that what judging is too?" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Transfer list for week ending June 19, 2015 »
Monday, June 22, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/22/15):
- No arguments currently scheduled.
Next 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 When the property was destroyed by fire, the insurance carrier rescinded the policy because the insurance application did not reveal the property’s true condition.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.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 6/22/15):
Monday, June 22
- 1:30 PM - South Holt Road Holdings, LLC v. Holt Road, LLC, et al (49A02-1407-MF-525) In 2006, the Appellees as borrowers executed and delivered a note, as well as a mortgage in connection with the note, regarding certain real estate. The Appellant has inherited the rights and interest in the note, mortgage and other loan documents through various assignments. The Appellees defaulted on the loan terms in May 2013, and the real estate was eventually foreclosed upon pursuant to that default. While the foreclosure proceedings were pending, the Appellees received certain property tax refunds from the Marion County Treasurer relating to tax years 2008-2011, prior to the Appellees' default. The parties dispute whether the tax refunds fall within the security interest held by Appellant pursuant to the loan documents, which the parties agree contain limited-recourse provisions. The trial court held that the Appellees as borrowers were entitled to the tax refunds because they are not within the Appellant's security interest as they relate to tax years prior to Appellee's default. On appeal, the parties make various arguments involving the interpretation of certain provisions in the loan documents. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Crone, Brown and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 6/29/15):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
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 22, 2015 08:23 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments