Monday, January 16, 2017
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 1/16/17):
Thursday, January 19
- 9:00 AM - Royce Love v. State of Indiana (71S03-1612-CR-00641) After a jury trial, Love was convicted in St. Joseph Superior Court of resisting law enforcement and mistreatment of a law enforcement animal. On appeal, a majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding video evidence indisputably contradicted police officer testimony about the events underlying the convictions. Love v. State, 61 N.E.3d 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 2-1, Sept. 8, 2016 COA opinion (ILB summary here, 8th case). The ILB posted several news stories at the time, under the heading "Appeals court says video 'indisputably contradicts' South Bend police testimony."
- 9:45 AM - Fresenius USA Marketing v. Indiana Department of State Revenue (49T10-1008-TA-00045)The Indiana State Department of Revenue denied Fresenius’s claim for a refund of sales tax paid on medical supplies it sold to dialysis clinics, finding that the relevant exemption applied only to items sold directly to patients. The Tax Court disagreed, and granted summary judgment to Fresenius. Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 56 N.E.3d 734 (Ind. Tax Court, July 15, 2016), trans. pending. The Indiana Department of State Revenue has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was this was a July 18, 2016 Tax Court opinion, which "present[ed] one dispositive issue: whether the Department is bound by its published ruling interpreting the exemption provided by Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-18(a)." The ruling concluded:
Even though the 1998 Ruling was not issued to Fresenius, it was entitled to rely on it because it demonstrated factual similarity. Because it did not rebut Fresenius’s showing of similarity, the Department is bound by its interpretation in its 1998 Ruling. Consequently, while the Department is not entitled to summary judgment on this basis, Fresenius is.
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 1/16/17): Thursday, January 16
- 10:00 AM - ABC Radiology, P.C., et al. v. Cathy Gearhart (Case# not provided on COA calendar) Cathy Gearhart (Plaintiff) filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court against various defendants following the death of her husband, Kent Gearhart, from renal cancer. The defendants to Counts I and II (Defendants) jointly filed a motion requesting that the trial court sever Counts I and II from Count III and transfer venue of Counts I and II to Vanderburgh County. Plaintiffs responded that Marion County was a county of preferred venue because a necessary defendant to the action – the Indiana Patients Compensation Fund – is a governmental organization with its principal office located there. Plaintiffs argued also that all three counts were properly joined because they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and have common questions of law and fact. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Defendants appeal, arguing that Plaintiff’s joinder of the underlying negligence actions with the declaratory judgment action was improper and deprived Defendants of their right to trial in a preferred venue county. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Crone, and Altice. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:30 PM - CS v. Aegis Women's Health (53A01-1607-CT-01657) After their daughter was born with a variety of health problems, a mother and father filed a medical malpractice claim against several healthcare providers with the Indiana Department of Insurance. Pursuant to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, a panel of doctors reviewed the matter and concluded that the healthcare providers had not breached the applicable standard of care. Nonetheless, the parents filed suit against the healthcare providers. The providers moved for summary judgment, and the parents responded, in part, with evidence that they had not presented to the review panel. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the providers on the ground that the parents had asserted a different breach in court than they had before the review panel. Issues on appeal include (1) whether medical malpractice plaintiffs can allege breaches in court that they did not first present to the medical review panel and, if so, (2) whether they can rely on evidence in court that was not first presented to the medical review panel. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Bradford and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 2:30 PM - Pastor Llobet, MD v. Juan Guitierrez (45A04-1605-CT-1133) This oral argument will be held shortly after the argument in C.S. v. Aegis Women’s Healthcare, No. 53A01-1607-CT-1657. Both cases raise the issue of whether a medical malpractice plaintiff can pursue in court claims that were not specifically presented during earlier medical review panel proceedings. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Bradford and Brown. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 11:00 AM - Otis Sams, Jr. v. State of Indiana (Case# not provided on COA calendar) Before his jury trial in Putnam Circuit Court, Sams moved to suppress the fruits of the inventory search of his truck. The trial court denied Sams’s motion. Sams sought certification for interlocutory appeal, which the trial court also denied. The evidence from the truck was admitted over Sams’s objection at trial. Sams appeals the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence from the truck, arguing that the officers’ inventory search was not sufficiently regulated by standard procedures and thereby ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment to the federal constitution. Sams raises no separate argument under our state constitution. The State responds that the inventory search was properly conducted under the established procedures of the Greencastle Police Department and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to admit the fruits of that search. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Robb, and Mathias. [Where: Butler University, Indianapolis, IN]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms generally will be accessible via videocast.Past Court of Appeals oral arguments 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 16, 2017 09:25 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments