High court to hear oral arguments for three cases on June 27

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
The Indiana Supreme Court bench in the Indiana Statehouse (IL file photo)

The Indiana Supreme Court will he hearing three oral arguments at the end of June, with the cases ranging from adoption to divorce to a dispute over an adult business license.

The first case the justices will be hearing on June 27 is at 9 a.m. in the Supreme Court Courtroom in the Indiana Statehouse.

The case– In the Matter of the Adoption of P.J. W.; J.D. and M.D. v. R.W., 24S-AD-117– was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals in November 2023.

Grandparents of P.J.W. petitioned to adopt of the father’s objections. The Montgomery Superior Court found his consent was not necessary but also found adoption was not in the child’s best interest.

Following the grandparents’ petition, the high court will hear arguments at 10 a.m. in a divorce case over division of assets.

In August Wohlt v. Christi Wohlt, 22A-DR-2685, the Delaware Circuit Court awarded all assets of a jointly owned business to August Wohlt.

August later discovered business-owned cryptocurrency, prompting Christi Wohlt to seek division of the omitted assets. August moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied.

After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court divided the cryptocurrency. The appellate court, however, reversed in October 2023 finding August was entitled to summary judgment.

Lastly, the justices will hear arguments at 11 a.m. over an adult entertainment theater’s business license.

AMW Investments and Midwest Entertainment Ventures appealed to the Clark Circuit Court after the Town of Clarksville revoked the entities’ adult business license.

During litigation, the trial court entered discovery sanctions against the two businesses, finding they waived any objections not raised in their first responses to Clarksville’s discovery requests.

The appellate court reversed in January 2024, finding the trial rules allow supplementation of discovery responses with new objections.

The case is AMW Investments Inc., Midwest Entertainment Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Theater X v. The Town of Clarksville, Planning Commission for the Town of Clarksville, and Rick Barr, 24S-PL-183.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}