« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit decided, 2-1, an Indiana case yesterday (3/17/17) | Main | Vacancy on Supreme Court 2017 - Interviews begins tomorrow morning to fill the Supreme Court vacancy resulting from Justice Rucker's upcoming May retirement »
Monday, March 20, 2017
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and nextThis week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 3/20/17):
Thursday, March 23
- 9:00 AM - State of Indiana v. Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 (27S04-1702-MI-00070) The State sought forfeiture of a Land Rover owned by Timbs, who had pled guilty to Class B Felony dealing in a controlled substance and Class C Felony theft. The Grant Superior Court entered judgment for Timbs on the forfeiture complaint. A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed on grounds forfeiture of the vehicle, worth approximately $40,000, would violate the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines. State v. Timbs, 62 N.E.3d 472 (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, Oct. 20, 2016 COA opinion where the majority held "that forfeiture of the Land Rover violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment."
- 9:45 AM - Charles McKeen, M.D. v. Billy Turner (53A05-1511-CT-02047) In medical malpractice litigation, the doctor moved to strike an expert’s opinion on grounds it raised a theory of malpractice the plaintiff had not presented in prior proceedings before the medical review panel. The Monroe Circuit Court denied the motion to strike. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding a plaintiff may raise any theory of malpractice in litigation following the panel review process if the proposed complaint and evidence submitted to the panel encompassed the theory. McKeen v. Turner, 61 N.E.3d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The doctor has petitioned the Court to accept jurisdiction over this appeal.
ILB: This is an Oct. 4th COA opinion (and is Judge Baker's 5,000th authored majority Court of Appeals opinion).
- 10:30 AM - Jordan Jacobs v. State of Indiana (49A02-1601-CR-00019) Jacobs was arrested and charged with carrying a handgun without a license. The Marion Superior Court convicted him after a bench trial, rejecting his claim that police stopped him in violation of the Indiana and United States Constitutions. A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Jacobs v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Jacobs has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a 2-1, Nov. 7, 2016 COA opinion (2nd case): "Jacobs contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the handgun into evidence at trial because the handgun was recovered in violation of Jacob’s rights under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 11. ".
- No oral arguments scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 3/20/17):
Thursday, March 23
- 11:00 AM - Wyatt Severance v. New Castle Community School Corporation (33A01-1609-CT-02088) In 2013, Wyatt Severance and Turner Melton were both enrolled in a vocational education program through New Castle Community School Corporation. A physical altercation between the two students resulted in a serious leg injury to Severance, who filed a civil complaint against the school corporation, alleging negligence. The school corporation moved for summary judgment on two grounds: first, that Severance was contributorily negligent in bringing about his injuries, thereby barring any recovery, and second, that the school did not breach its duty to Severance. During the summary judgment stage, Severance designated an expert affidavit, which the school corporation moved to strike. The trial court granted the school’s motion to strike and the school’s motion for summary judgment. Severance now appeals. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Robb, and Altice. [Where: 2325 Chester Blvd., Richmond, IN]
Monday, March 27
- 1:30 PM - L.G. v. S.L., et al. (29A04-1607-AD-01756) In October 2015, L.G. (“Father”) filed a petition to establish paternity of Infant Male R. (“Child”) with a trial court in Marion County. A few weeks later, Child was born in Fishers, and S.L. and W.L. (“Adoptive Parents”) filed a petition to adopt Child with a trial court in Hamilton County. Thereafter, Father filed a motion to contest adoption. The Hamilton Superior Court consolidated the paternity and adoption cases. Following several months of discovery, on June 23, 2016, the trial court granted Adoptive Parents’ motion to dismiss Father’s motion to contest adoption, and the court concluded that Father’s consent to the adoption was implied by statute. Father appeals and presents the following issues for our review: whether the trial court erred when it concluded that his consent to the adoption was implied pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-19-10-1.2 for failure to prosecute his motion to contest adoption without undue delay; and whether the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed Father’s motion to contest adoption as a sanction for alleged discovery violations. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Bailey, and May. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 1:00 PM - Melvin Wolf v. State of Indiana (10A01-1607-CR-01560) Wolf went to the race track to watch his son’s race. Another driver, Kevin Blue, beat Wolf’s son. The two racers’ cars collided on the track. After the race, Wolf approached Blue in the “weigh-in” area. Wolf called Blue names. When Blue turned around, either he grabbed Wolf and Wolf punched him or Wolf just punched him. Both men ended up on the ground, scuffling, until they were pulled apart. Later, Wolf was arrested and charged with battery. During the bench trial, Wolf claimed self-defense. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to six months, suspended to probation. Wolf argues the State did not refute his self-defense claim. He claims the trial court erred in finding the fact he called Blue names constituted provocation. Wolf asserts he had a constitutional right to do so. Additionally, Wolf was not in a place he was not allowed to be and he only struck Blue in self-defense after Blue grabbed Wolf’s shirt. He also claims Blue’s testimony was incredibly dubious because it differed from the original police report. The State counters the trial court was presented with sufficient evidence to find Wolf guilty. Wolf did not withdraw from the encounter; thus, a successful self-defense claim was not supported. The State the trial testimony was not incredibly dubious. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May, and Altice. [Where: University of Southern Indiana, Evansville, IN ]
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 20, 2017 08:19 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments