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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT