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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT