Monday, March 14, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and nextThis week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 3/14/16):
Thursday, March 17
- 9:00 AM - Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, et al. v. Indiana House Republican Caucus and Eric Koch (49S00-1510-PL-607) This case involves public records requests seeking records of communications between a State Representative and energy industry companies and lobbyists. The Marion Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of justiciability, and the plaintiffs appealed. This Court has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal by granting a verified motion to transfer filed by the appellants pursuant to Appellate Rule 56(A).
- 9:45 AM - David P. Allen v. Kimberly W. Allen (13S01-1601-DR-00053) The Crawford Circuit Court issued an order requiring the father to pay his daughter’s expenses for dental school. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the trial court may order parents to pay graduate school expenses but that it erred in not properly apportioning expenses between the father, the mother, and the daughter. Allen v. Allen, No. 13A01-1411-DR-476 (Ind. Ct. App. July 24, 2015) (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 July 24, 2015 NFP COA opinion (4th case), where the panel concluded: "We reverse and remand for a college expenses order appropriately apportioning the costs between Hunter, her father, and her mother.".
- 10:30 AM - Jay Classroom Teachers Association v. Jay School Corporation, et al. (49S05-1603-PL-113) The Indiana Education Employment Relations Board adopted, in large part, the school corporation’s last best offer as the collective bargaining agreement with the teachers union for the 2013-14 school year. On a petition for judicial review, the Marion Superior Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed. Jay Classroom Teachers Ass’n v. Jay Sch. Corp., --- N.E.3d ---, 2015 WL 7074723 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted petitions to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: - This was a Nov. 13, 2015 COA opinion, where the panel concluded: "In conclusion, we find that the additional-compensation provision was not impermissible and should not have been stricken by the Board, whereas the Superintendent provision was impermissible and should have been stricken by the Board."
- No oral arguments currently scheduled
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/14/16):Tuesday, March 15
- 11:00 AM - A.B. Doe v. Jerome Adams, M.D., et al (49A04-1505-CT-326) Pursuant to Indiana's newborn screening program, blood is drawn from all newborns and used by the Indiana State Department of Health ("ISDH") to screen for a number of serious diseases. ISDH has in storage samples of up to 2.5 million individuals. Prior to 2013, dried blood cards were maintained unless the parents requested that they be destroyed. Here, Doe seeks a court order to have all such samples destroyed. The trial court dismissed her complaint because Doe lacked standing and because her samples would be destroyed upon receipt of a signed request by her parents. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Crone and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - Tinker et al v. State (10A01-1507-CR-999) On July 19, 2012, the State charged Byron Tinker with one Class D felony and three Class A misdemeanors. On Feb. 19, 2015, Tinker filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C), because he had not been brought to trial within one year. The trial court denied Tinker's motion in a CCS entry that indicated only that Tinker's objection was "untimely filed." In this interlocutory appeal, Tinker asserts that the trial court assigned periods of time to him that should have counted against the State for Rule 4(C) calculations, and the State asserts that we should remand for the trial court to clarify why it assigned some periods of delay to Tinker. We request the parties to be prepared to discuss our standard of review, whether remand for clarification is an available remedy in this context, and whether unexplained periods of delay ought to be assigned to the State. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Bakerm Najam, and May. [Where: Old Vanderburgh County Courthouse, Evansville, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/21/16):Friday, March 22
- 11:00 AM - Shotts v. State (49A04-1509-CR-1347) Shotts was handcuffed and patted down after he walked into a house in which police officers were actively conducting a search for drugs. The officers found a handgun in Shotts's pocket, and Shotts was later convicted of possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon. Shotts argues that the handgun should have been suppressed because he was seized without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The State argues that the officers' actions were justified under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. Summers (holding that occupants of a residence may be detained during a valid search) and or Terry v. Ohio (allowing a stop and frisk upon reasonable suspicion). The State further argues that the officer had probable cause to arrest Shotts for visiting a common nuisance and/or resisting arrest. Shotts also argues that his sentence is inappropriate. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Bradford and Pyle. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
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 14, 2016 08:00 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments