« Ind. Gov't. - "Appeals court ruling brings an end to big box stores ripping off local communities’ tax dollars" | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Email access a clear black and white case to journalists" »
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This 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.
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 6/6/16):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
This 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)]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 6/6/16):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
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 31, 2016 08:18 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments