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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT