Monday, May 23, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 5/23/16):
Thursday, May 26
- 9:00 AM - A.W. v. R.W. (29S02-1603-PO-135) The Hamilton Superior Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and extended a protective order previously issued. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at the hearing. A.W. v. R.W. (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: In this opinion, as issued Nov. 30, 2015 by the Court of Appeals, and now vacated, the COA reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the protective order against AW.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 5/30/16):
Thursday, June 2
- 9:00 AM - D.A. v. State of Indiana (48S02-1604-MI-00183) The Madison Circuit Court granted D.A.’s petition to expunge the records of his two felony convictions, but denied his petition to expunge records of a civil forfeiture arising from the same set of circumstances underlying the felony charges. A divided Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred by not expunging records of a civil forfeiture when the factual basis for an expunged criminal conviction and civil forfeiture are the same. D.A. v. State, --- N.E.3d ---, 2015 WL 9589761 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2015). The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
- 9:45 AM - State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Carol Jakubowicz (45S05-1605-CT-253) When Jakubowicz filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits, State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that its policy barred the claim as untimely because it was not filed within three years after the accident, but the Lake Circuit Court denied that motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the policy unambiguously bars the claim as untimely and so State Farm is entitled to summary judgment. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Jakubowicz, 45 N.E.3d 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was an Oct. 29, 2015 COA opinion reversing the trial court:
Even if we were to construe Jakubowicz’ notification to State Farm on December 10, 2009 that a claim was “likely” to be instituted, Jakubowicz would still not be in compliance with the provisions of the policy as these require both the notification of the claim and the lawsuit to be filed within the three-year contractual limitation period.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 5/23/16):Monday, May 23
- 1:00 PM - Arion v. State (08A02-1508-CR-01278) On 9/6/13, the Carroll Circuit Court issued a warrant instructing the Sheriff of Carroll County to arrest Ricky Arion on charges of burglary, sexual battery, and criminal confinement. Arion was incarcerated in Miami County on unrelated charges at the time. On 9/10/13, a law enforcement agent of the DOC served the warrant on Arion and gave him a copy. Arion filed a motion for speedy trial under Criminal Rule 4(B) in the Carroll Circuit Court on 9/13/13. On 12/16/13, Arion filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, as he had not been brought to trial within 70 days. The trial court denied the motion, holding that because the Sheriff had not returned the warrant to the court as served, Arion had not been arrested under the new charges, and Criminal Rule 4 did not apply. Arion filed a motion to reconsider, including a copy of the warrant that was served on him, but the trial court denied this motion as well. The trial court held an initial hearing in the case on 5/22/15, setting it for trial on 10/5/15. Arion objected as this date fell more than 2 years after he had been charged. Arion filed a motion for discharge on 7/10/15. The trial court acknowledged that Arion had been arrested on 9/10/13, when he was read the warrant, and that he had made this known to the trial court by attaching a copy of the warrant to his motion to reconsider. However, the trial court denied Arion's motion, holding that, because it had not seen the copy of the warrant attached to Arion's motion, it had continued to operate under the belief that the warrant had not been served, and was not made actually aware that Arion had been arrested until 3/26/15. As the trial court held this date to be the date that Arion had been arrested for Criminal Rule 4 purposes, it found no Rule 4 violation. The trial court also found that Arion's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had not been violated. The trial court certified this judgment for interlocutory appeal and this Court accepted jurisdiction.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:00 PM - Purvi Patel v. State (71A04-1504-CR-166) Purvi Patel purchased misoprostol and mifepristone from a Hong Kong pharmacy online and used those drugs to terminate her pregnancy at home. She delivered a live baby of approximately 25 weeks' gestation who died shortly after birth. She did not seek medical care until after the baby died. Patel was charged with and convicted of neglect of a dependent as a Class A felony and feticide, a Class B felony. On appeal, Patel argues that her neglect of a dependent conviction should be reversed because it is not supported by sufficient evidence. She also argues that her feticide conviction should be reversed because the feticide statute is either inapplicable or unconstitutional in this situation. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Bailey and Crone. [Where: Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 5/30/16):
Thursday, June 2
- 2:00 PM - Faulkner & Associates v. The Restoration Church (41A01-1506-PL-00706) In October of 2009, Randy Faulkner & Associates, Inc. (“RFA”) agreed to lease real property in Greenwood to The Restoration Church, Inc. (“the Church”). At the time, Randall W. Faulkner (“Faulkner”), the owner of RFA, attended the Church, and prior to the execution of the lease agreement several members of the Church and the Church itself invested about $450,000 to restore the property. Although RFA believed the monthly fair market rental value of the restored property to be about $14,000, RFA agreed to rent the property to the Church for one year at $100 per month. The lease agreement provided the Church with six one-year options to renew, but it is not disputed that the Church did not give the notice required to exercise its option to renew the lease. In late July of 2012, RFA gave the Church written notice to vacate the premises within thirty days. After vacating the premises, the Church filed suit against RFA and Faulkner for breach of contract. RFA and Faulkner countersued for breach of contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, and various theories of defamation. After a bench trial, the court found that RFA had breached its contract with the Church, relying on waiver and estoppel. The court then ordered RFA to pay the Church about $322,000 in damages, which the court calculated in part by using the Church’s actual monthly rent payments, a pro-rated amount of the Church’s and its members’ initial restoration costs, and the Church’s remaining option terms. The court also found for Faulkner on his intentional tort claims but concluded that Faulkner had not met his burden of proof to show damages on those claims. This appeal and cross-appeal ensued. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Riley and Robb. [Where: French Lick Resort, French Lick, IN]
- 10:00 AM - Schuchman/Samberg Investments Inc. v. Hoosier Penn Oil Co., et al (49A02-1508-MI-1051) In this certified interlocutory appeal, Schuchman/Samberg Investments (SSI) appeals the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Hoosier Penn Oil Company, Union Oil Company of California, and BP Corporation North America on SSI's claims under Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute (ELAS) and Petroleum Releases Statute (PRS). With respect to its ELAS claim, SSI argues that the trial court erred in applying the six-year statute of limitations applicable to property damage claims rather than the 10-year statute of limitations applicable to contribution claims. SSI argues further that the trial court erred in determining the date on which its ELAS claim accrued. SSI also argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the PRS does not provide for a private cause of action under the circumstances of this case. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Robb, Barnes and Altice. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
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 May 23, 2016 08:52 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments