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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT