Three Indiana Supreme Court oral arguments set for April 4 

  • 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
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
(Photo courtesy of Indiana Supreme Court)

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear three oral arguments on April 4, including one for a case involving extensive damages and cleanup at a southwestern Indiana poultry processing plant.

At 9 a.m., the court will hear the argument of Perdue Farms, Inc. V. L&B Transport, LLC. U.S. Security Associates, LLC, contracted with Perdue Farms for security.

In the contract, both parties were required to file lawsuits coming from their agreement in Maryland.

After an incident at the plant, Perdue filed a lawsuit in Daviess Circuit Court, allowing U.S. Security’s and its employees’ motion to enforce the forum-selection clause. During interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.  

The Indiana Supreme Court approved a petition to transfer and now has jurisdiction over the appeal. 

The case is Perdue Farms, Inc. v. L&B Transport, LLC, U.S. Security Associates, Inc., William Richardson, Jennifer Freeman, Brian Hill, Carl Nelson, and ABC Corporation (24S-PL-040).  

At 10 a.m., the court will hear the argument of Jackson v. State.

The state charged Brione Jackson with possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon after police found a gun in his trunk.

Jackson moved to suppress the firearm and statements he made after officers found it, arguing police lacked reasonable suspicion to search his trunk because they smelled burnt marijuana in the passenger compartment. 

The Hamilton Superior Court denied his motion. During interlocutory appeal, the appellate court affirmed.  

Jackson filed a petition to transfer and asked the supreme court to assume jurisdiction. 

The case is Brione Donta Jackson v. State of Indiana (22A-CR-2524). 

At 11 a.m., the court will hear the argument Finnegan v. State.

The Pulaski Circuit Court alleged Russell Finnegan was in criminal contempt of court for sending vulgar communications to the prosecutor and court. Finnegan intended to assert an insanity defense.

He requested a continuance and asked the trial court for competency evaluations, which the court denied. The court found him in contempt and ordered him to 170 days incarcerated.  

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, arguing Finnegan was entitled to assert an insanity defense.  

The high court granted the state’s petition to transfer, and now has assumed jurisdiction. 

The case is Russell Finnegan v. State of Indiana (24S-MI-00068). 

Livestreaming of the arguments can be viewed here.

 

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 }}