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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT