ILNews

COA to hear 4 cases; one at Plainfield High School

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear arguments in four cases next week, including one on the road at Plainfield High School.

A three-judge panel will hear arguments Monday in Meridian Insurance v. Cha Cha, Inc., No. 53A01-0608-CV-352, which poses the question of whether the period for restoration of a business damaged by fire in an adjoining building should be decided by the courts or through the appraisal process.

The following day two panels will hear afternoon arguments - David Scholtman v. Taza Café, 49A05-0608-CV-475 and Terry Huber, et al. v. Danny W. Sering, et al., 54A01-0604-CV-162. The 1 p.m. arguments in Schlotman will be at Plainfield High School. The case addressed the issue of whether a carry-out restaurant, Gyro Joint, had a common-law duty to protect a patron - in this case one attacked while eating at an outdoor table at the establishment. Scholtman asserts that duty was breached in light of multiple criminal complaints against the establishment, while the eatery argued it did not have a duty and the injuries weren't foreseeable.

Following arguments in that case, panel judges Edward Najam, Melissa May, and Paul Mathias will answer questions about the judicial process.

In Huber, judges will consider at 1:30 p.m. whether forfeiture of a real estate contract is valid when a party has paid more than 20 percent of the purchase price.

Final arguments of the week are scheduled for Wednesday in Frank Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp, No. 82A05-0609-CV-488. This argument is a sequel to a class action suit decided by the Indiana Supreme Court last year on the constitutionality of certain school fees to compensate the school district's budget. Justices decided a $20 fee charged by the district was unconstitutional. Now, the successful challengers are asking the court to determine whether they are "prevailing party" for purposes of being awarded attorney fees.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT