State Supreme Court to decide Indiana-IBM dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state Supreme Court will decide a dispute between the state of Indiana and IBM over the company's failed attempt to privatize public welfare services.

The Indianapolis Star reports Justice Mark Massa has recused himself because he was general counsel to former Gov. Mitch Daniels.

IBM won the $1.4 billion contract after Daniels signed off on privatization in 2006, but the state canceled the contract in 2009 because of complaints.

The two sides sued each other in 2010. The state was seeking the return of more than $437 million. A Marion County judge awarded $52 million to IBM in 2012.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in February found IBM failed to deliver its part of the deal, but found it was still entitled to nearly $50 million in fees.

The Supreme Court granted transfer in three other cases for the week ending Aug. 8:

  • State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service v. Settlers Life Insurance Company, 49S05-1408-PL-514. In March, the Court of Appeals affirmed a Marion Superior ruling that a company that sells an insurance policy with the option to assign it to a trust to use the funds for funeral services is not subject to the Pre-Need Act.
  • Dustin E. McCowan v. State of Indiana, 64S03-1408-CR-516. In April, the Court of Appeals affirmed McCowan’s murder conviction, finding that under the totality of the circumstances, McCowan’s rights weren’t violated when police conducted a warrantless search of his cell phone to obtain records, texts and location of calls.
  • In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor, 41S04-1408-AD-515. The Court of Appeals affirmed  denial of grandparents’ motions seeking relief from an adoption decree by child’s stepfather. Grandparents seek custody of a child they raised from birth to 27 months old.

Supreme Court transfer disposition lists may be viewed here.



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. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well