ILNews

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.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT