ILNews

Justices grant transfer in 2 cases

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers this week.

Justices will consider an Indiana State University case involving unemployment benefits for a discharged university professor, and another case delving into the attorney general's power to demand discovery in consumer complaint investigations.

One transfer comes in the combined appeals of Liberty Publishing Inc. and Nu-Sash of Indianapolis v. Steve Carter, No. 49A02-0606-CV-502, which the state's appellate court ruled on June 25. The appeals court affirmed Marion Superior Court judgments that the attorney general has the ability to file a petition to enforce the Civil Investigation Demand against both businesses under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer's Sales Act and the Indiana Home Improvement Contract Act.

Both instances stemmed from deceptive consumer practice complaints against Liberty operating as Booster Club Productions and Nu-Sash operating as McKee Sunroom Designs. The attorney general's office was investigating Liberty because of complaints about the business selling advertising space on calendars with local high school athletic schedules and claiming some proceeds would go to the schools or fundraising events. The Nu-Sash investigation involved complaints about the business failing to supply customers with applicable statutory terms. The businesses contended that the state didn't have the power to compel this information.

On the second transfer, justices agreed to take Indiana State University v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development and William A. Lafief, No. 93A02-0611-EX-1012. In June, the Court of Appeals reversed a decision that Lafief was entitled to unemployment benefits because the review board erroneously concluded he'd been discharged from his professor position. That decision considered the definition of "discharged" in the context of a non-tenured university professor whose one-year probationary contract was not renewed.
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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT