7th Circuit, Supreme Court arguments Friday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Anyone wanting to watch or listen to appellate arguments in federal or state court will have a chance Friday.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago will hear arguments questioning whether a portion of Indiana's wine-shipping law is constitutional, and the Indiana Supreme Court will hear two civil cases involving state agencies.

A three-judge federal panel will hear arguments at 9:30 a.m. Central Standard Time in consolidated cases Patrick L. Baude, et al. v. David Heath and Wine and Spirits Wholesalers of Indiana, Nos. 07-3323 and 07-3338. The appeal stems from an August ruling by then-U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in Indianapolis that part of the state's 2006 law banning out-of-state wineries from shipping to Hoosier customers without face-to-face contact is unconstitutional.

The state argues that the law is constitutional and should be enforced, while wineries and wine consumers contend that the law discriminates against wineries outside the state and could harm business or the customers' wine enjoyment. Ten amici curiae briefs have been filed in the cases, including two from Indiana General Assembly members who disagree with each other about the law and a brief in support of the law from 21 states and Puerto Rico. Audio of the arguments can be found at the 7th Circuit Web site.

In Indianapolis that morning, the Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments at 9 a.m. in Indiana State University v. Review Board of Indiana Department of Workforce Development, 93S02-0801-EX-17. After the university didn't reappoint an assistant professor for the next academic year, the review board determined that educator was entitled to unemployment benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed last year, and the justices decided to take the case.

The second case - scheduled for 9:45 a.m. - is Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 49S00-0711-TA-553. That case involves an appeal from the Indiana Tax Court, where Miller Brewing moved for summary judgment on grounds that the department's position was barred by issue preclusion. The Tax Court denied that motion but certified it for review by the state's highest court.

State arguments can be watched live online at the Indiana Supreme Court's Web site here and clicking on the particular case name.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?