Monday, January 11, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and nextThis week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 1/11/16):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
- 9:00 AM - Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana (49A02-1501-CR-2) When the Court of Appeals reversed Ryan’s convictions, the trial court granted an appeal bond with certain restrictions, such as GPS monitoring. Later, this Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and reinstated the convictions. See Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. June 3, 2014). At that point, Ryan requested an award of credit time for the period he had been subject to the terms of the appeal bond. The Marion Superior Court denied that request. The Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling and also held that Ryan’s challenge to the terms of the appeal bond was untimely. Ryan v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, No. 49A02-1501-CR-2 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2015), trans. pending. Ryan has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: The ILB had this interesting post on the Ryan decision, where one of the issues was the impact of prosecutorial misconduct, on June 3, 2014.
- 9:45 AM - Virginia Garwood v. Indiana Department of Revenue (82S10-1505-TA-330) Virginia Garwood filed an appeal in the Tax Court, alleging she is owed a tax refund of more than $100,000 because the Department of State Revenue seized her dogs and sold them for less than their fair market value, and the difference exceeds the amount of her tax liability. The Department refunded the amount of the sale proceeds and the money seized from Garwood. The Department then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the remaining amount Garwood seeks is a claim for compensatory damages over which the Tax Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Tax Court denied the motion and certified its order for interlocutory review. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to review the order.
ILB: For background, see this long list of ILB posts on the Garwood cases.
- 10:30 AM - Andy Mohr West, Inc., et al. v. Indiana Secretary of State (49S02-1511-PL-668) When the Auto Dealer Services Division of the Office of the Indiana Secretary of State dismissed the claims of three automobile dealers who protested the proposed relocation of a fourth dealer, the three protesting dealers petitioned for judicial review, and the Marion Superior Court affirmed the Division. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded to the Division for further proceedings on the protesting dealers’ claims. Andy Mohr W., Inc. v. Office of Indiana Sec'y of State, --- N.E.3d ---, 2015 WL 4760455 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: Transfer was granted to both Appellee - Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Appellee - Secretary of State. This was an August. 13th 2-1 opinion presenting a question of first impression regarding an interpretation of the Indiana Dealer Services statutes.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/11/16):
Thursday, January 14
- 10:30 AM - Hall v. Dallman (49A02-1502-CT-67) While on her way into work, Brenda Hall fell, injuring herself. Hall received a worker's compensation award from her employer, Ameritech Services, Inc. (Ameritech). Hall then filed a negligence action against AT&T Services, Inc., among others. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AT&T on the basis that Hall's negligence claim was barred by the exclusive remedies provision of the Worker's Compensation Act found at Ind. Code 22-3-2-6. Specifically, the trial court considered the corporate structure of AT&T, Inc., and determined that AT&T Services and Ameritech were both subsidiaries of AT&T, Inc., and therefore, were joint employers of Hall. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Brown and Altice. [Where: Court of Appeals courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/18/16):
Wednesday, January 20
- 10:00 AM - B.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (13A01-1505-JM-363) B.S. is the mother of three children. In early 2015, the Indiana Department of Child Services received several reports of neglect of the children from an undisclosed source. In response, the DCS conducted assessments of B.S., her boyfriend, and her home but found no evidence to support the reports. Nonetheless, DCS requested to interview B.S.'s two oldest children. B.S. refused to allow the interviews, and DCS sought a court order. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 31-33-8-7, the trial court granted DCS authority to interview the children. B.S. appeals that order. Although this court has previously held that the statute is not unconstitutional on its face, see In re A.H., 992 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied, B.S. contends that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to her because it violates her substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to direct the care and upbringing of her children. Specifically, citing a decision of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, she claims it was error to grant the order when there was no evidence to support the request for interviews of the children. The State argues that this appeal is moot because events subsequent to the initiation of this appeal led B.S. to consent to the interviews. The State also argues that the application of the statute did not violate B.S.’s constitutional rights.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Robb, Barnes and Altice. [Where: Court of Appeals courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - Sportsdrome Speedway, Inc. v. Jason Clark (10A01-1505-CT-341) In June 2011, Jason Clark performed services for Sportsdrome Speedway, Inc.'s racetrack. In connection with his responsibilities, Clark signed a release that allowed him to stand in restricted areas of the racetrack during races. A crash occurred during one of the races at which Clark was working, causing a race car to be propelled into the crash barrier, ultimately injuring Clark. Clark brought a personal injury action against Sportsdrome, claiming that Sportsdrome was negligent and, further, had engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. Clark subsequently conceded that the release barred his negligence claim and agreed to proceed only on his claim of willful and wanton misconduct. Sportsdrome filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Sportsdrome brings this interlocutory appeal, contending that the trial court erred when it found that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Sportsdrome or its agents engaged in willful and wanton misconduct. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Mathias and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals courtroom (WEBCAST)]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms generally will be accessible via videocast.
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 January 11, 2016 08:10 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments