Monday, February 22, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and nextThis week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 2/22/16):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled
- No oral arguments currently scheduled
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 2/22/16):Monday, February 22
- 11:00 AM - Caterpillar Inc. v. Sudlow (79A02-1507-CT-801) William Sudlow was fired from his employment with Caterpillar after he left a partially visible handgun in his vehicle in the parking lot. Caterpillar argues that Sudlow violated the employer's firearm policy, which Caterpillar contends prohibits weapons in vehicles unless they are stored out of sight. Sudlow argues that the termination of his employment violated Indiana's Firearms Statute. The trial court ruled in Sudlow's favor, and Caterpillar now appeals. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Bradford and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Wednesday, February 24
- 10:30 AM - ESPN Inc. and Paula Levigne v. University of Notre Dame Security Police Department (71A05-1505-MI-381) Appellants/Plaintiffs ESPN Inc. and Paula Lavigne (collectively, "ESPN") appeal the trial court's order granting Appellee/Defendant, University of Notre Dame Security Police Department's ("NDSP"), motion to dismiss. The motion was based on ESPN's complaint alleging that NDSP was a "public agency" under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act ("APRA") and should accordingly be compelled to produce incident reports on certain student-athletes. The trial court's judgment in favor of NDSP was based, in part, on the fact that between 2003 and 2011, three different Public Access Counselors had issued opinions to the effect that private colleges that appointed campus police officers were not public agencies under APRA.
The State of Indiana filed a friend of the court brief that is aligned with ESPN. The State argues that every police officer exercising delegated state authority should be subject to public scrutiny through the APRA. South Bend Tribune and Hoosier State Press Association also filed a similar brief aligned with ESPN. They advance public policy arguments in favor of including campus police departments within the definition of "public agency." The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Robb and Pyle. [Where: Indiana Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST?)]
Thursday, February 25
- 11:00 AM - Bank of New York Mellon v. Halifax Financial Group, L.P., et al (36A04-1504-MI-162) Robert and Alice Hartman own real estate in Jackson County, IN. In March 2004, the Hartmans executed a note payable to CTX Mortgage Company, LLC ("CTX") and a mortgage securing the note in favor of CTX. The mortgage provided that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS") acted as a nominee for the lender and the lender's successors and assigns and that MERS was a mortagee. In 2006, the Bank of New York Mellon ("BONY") became the assignee of the note. In October 2012, the property subject to the mortgage was sold at a tax sale to Halifax Financial Group, L.P. ("Halifax"). Halifax sent certain notices, including a notice of the tax sale and a later notice regarding its petition for the issuance of a tax deed, to CTX at certain addresses. Halifax did not send notices to MERS. In October 2013, Halifax filed a petition for an order directing the Auditor of Jackson County to issue a tax deed, the court entered the order directing the issuance of a tax deed, and the Jackson County Auditor executed a tax deed on or about Dec. 17, 2013. MERS executed an assignment of the mortgage on Dec. 31, 2013, assigning the mortgage to BONY, and the assignment was recorded on Jan. 10, 2014. Halifax later conveyed the property to the Hartmans. On July 25, 2014, BONY filed a petition to intervene and to set aside the tax deed. BONY presented an affidavit that its servicer was first advised about the subject tax sale proceedings on Feb. 21, 2014. The trial court denied BONY's petition to intervene and did not rule on BONY's motion to set aside. BONY brings this appeal from the trial court's order, arguing that it satisfied the requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 24(A) to intervene as a matter of right in the proceedings below and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying its petition to intervene. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Bradford, Brown and Altice. [Where: Indiana Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST?)]
Friday, February 26
- 1:00 PM - Williams-Bey v. State (20A03-1508-PC-1173) STILL no description provided. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Najam and Bailey. [Where: Brown County High School, 235 School House Lane, Nashville, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 2/29/16): Wednesday, March 2
- 1:00 PM - Megenity v. Dunn (22A04-1506-CT-722) Appellant-Plaintiff Tresa Megenity (Megenity) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendant David Dunn (Dunn), finding, as a matter of law, that Dunn's actions were within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in karate pursuant to the directives of Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011). The parties disagree on the scope of the holding in Pfenning. Accordingly, the main issue before this court is whether Pfenning posits that the specific karate action must be within the ordinary range of behavior in the sport or whether the specific karate movement must be executed in the precise manner specified by the specific drill within the sport of karate. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Riley and May. [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 February 22, 2016 08:10 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments