Justices to hear 'robocalls' arguments Monday

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court travels to Terre Haute Monday for arguments in a case dealing with "robocalls." The issue in State of Indiana v. American Family Voices, Inc., Jim Gonzalez, and John Does 2-10, is whether pre-recorded, automated "robocalls" with political content can be limited under Indiana's Automatic Dialing Machine Statute, Indiana Code Section 24-5-14-5. The case stems from complaints about American Family Voices' use of automated calls; the attorney general's office filed an action against the group in September 2006 in Harrison Circuit Court. The Circuit Court granted American Family Voices' motion to dismiss the complaint, leading to the state seeking immediate transfer of the case to the Supreme Court. The central committees of the Indiana Democratic and Republican parties have filed briefs arguing that political pre-recorded calls are legal.
At issue is whether the 1988 state law banning these calls - which the attorney general first started enforcing in 2006 - applies only to commercial or sales-related calls, or whether it extends to include political-related calls.

Since 2004, the state has filed numerous suits against companies or reached agreements over alleged violations of federal or state statutes regulating automated and pre-recorded calls, including Eyeglass World LLC, Promise Keepers, and the Economic Freedom Fund. In September 2007, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed, Inc. v. State of Indiana and Steve Carter, Attorney General, No. 06-3900, a suit filed by Inc. that challenged Indiana's prerecorded telephone messages statute. The federal appellate court ruled because a state court was already considering the issue, it could provide an adequate legal remedy. filed the federal action seeking an injunction to stop the state's enforcement of the statute after the attorney general filed a state claim against a company that hired to make the pre-recorded calls to Hoosiers. Arguments begin at 1 p.m. in the Tilson Auditorium in the Hulman Center at Indiana State University, 200 N. Eighth St., Terre Haute.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.