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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT