ILNews

Appeals court upholds dismissal of Star appeal on rehearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals granted The Indianapolis Star’s request for rehearing regarding the court’s decision to dismiss the newspaper’s appeal of a discovery order, but the court once again voted 2-1 to dismiss the appeal.

Chief Judge Margret Robb signed the eight-page order on rehearing in which Judges Edward Najam and Elaine Brown affirmed the Dec. 7, 2012, published order dismissing appeal over this matter. Judge Rudolph Pyle III dissented as he did previously.

This is the second time this case has come before the COA; the first time, the judges sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether the newspaper has to identify an online user whose comment is part of a defamation lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Miller, former CEO of Junior Achievement of Central Indiana. The trial court has since ordered The Star to produce the name.

The Court of Appeals voted late last year 2-1 that the discovery order isn’t a final judgment and the court has no jurisdiction over the case.

Typically, the appeals court will deny a rehearing petition when a party offers new arguments on rehearing, but the judges decided to address the four arguments raised by The Star in its petition. The newspaper contended that this appeal came to the court by the same procedural route as the first appeal; that In re WTHR-TV, 693 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 1998), allows the appeals court to disregard Rule 14(B) trial court certification requirement for a discretionary interlocutory appeal and to decide this case on the merits; that the discovery order didn’t comply with Trial Rule 34(C) and the noncompliant order can’t evade the jurisdiction of the COA; and that Appellate Rule 66(B) should be available to save this appeal from procedural default.

The majority held that no authority suggests that the traditional right to appeal preserved in the Indiana Constitution includes the right to a direct appeal from interlocutory orders; that the newspaper’s reliance on WTHR-TV is misplaced; and Rule 66(B) won’t salvage a total failure to comply with Trial Rule 54(B).

The order is In re Indiana Newspapers Inc d/b/a The Indianapolis Star v. Jeffrey M. Miller, et al., 49A02-1211-PL-898.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT