Main Menu
Oral Argument Preview: Week of May 4, 2009
Posted in Litigation

This week, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear argument in four cases.

  • At 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5, the Court will hear Dowdell v. City of Jeffersonville.  The issue in this case is whether Jeffersonville can enforce an ordinance prohibiting all persons defined as sex offenders from ever having unrestricted access to the city’s parks.  The argument will take place in the Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom, Room 413 of the State House, and will be webcast.
  • At 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, the Court will hear U.S. Bank, NA v. Integrity Land Title Corp.  This case arises from a defective title search and ensuing claims brought by the mortgage holder, U.S. Bank, against Integrity Land Title Corp., which hired out the title search.  The trial court granted Integrity’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Integrity owed no duty to U.S. Bank in contract or tort.  U.S. Bank filed a motion to correct error and motion for relief of judgment based upon its claim of newly discovered evidence that Integrity’s president had misrepresented facts.  In support of the motion, U.S. Bank attached an affidavit from its counsel and a deposition of Integrity’s president.  The trial court granted Integrity’s motion to strike the supporting evidence.  On appeal, U.S. Bank challenges the trial court’s granting of Integrity’s motion to strike and the underlying summary judgment.  This argument will take place in the Vienna Ballroom at the Conrad Hotel in downtown Indianapolis.
  • At 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 7, the Court will hear Columbus Medical Services v. Liberty Healthcare Corporation.  This case is an appeal from a judgment in favor of Liberty Healthcare Corporation that included CMS’s attorney fees.  It will take place in the Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom at the State House, and will be webcast.
  • At 10 a.m. on Friday, May 8, the Court will hear Edward Rose of Indiana, LLC v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals.  In this case, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied Edward Rose’s petition for a variance of development standards with respect to an identification / informational pole sign that existed on its property.  The trial court affirmed the Board’s conclusion that Edward Rose’s petition failed to satisfy the three criteria for variance set forth in Indiana Code section 36-7-4-918.5(a).  On Appeal, Edward Rose argues that strict application of the zoning ordinance would “result in practical difficulties in the use of the property” – one of the three criteria.  This argument will take place at Richardson Chapel, on the campus of Franklin College in Franklin, Indiana.

Finally, there are no arguments scheduled this week at the Indiana Supreme Court, but the webcast of last Thursday’s Supreme Court argument in Lucio v. State.

RSS RSS Feed

Subscribe

Recent Posts

Categories

Contributors

Archives

Back to Page