ILNews

Court denies transfer to gun suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer Monday to a gun suit out of Gary which has been ongoing since 1999.

According to the docket entry for Smith and Wesson, et al. v. City of Gary, No. 45A05-0612-CV-754, the high court denied transfer. Justice Frank Sullivan voted in favor of granting transfer and Justice Theodore Boehm voted to hold the case for resolution of litigation pending in the United States Supreme Court. The denial was announced in a press release by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The City of Gary suit alleges handgun manufactures negligently designed and distributed weapons and created a public nuisance by failing to take steps to prevent criminals from getting the guns. The suit was originally dismissed by the trial court and later reversed by the appellate courts. In 2006, on remand, a different trial court ruled that the 2005 federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was unconstitutional and allowed the suit to proceed. The appellate court affirmed the ruling in October 2007.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court docket, both the City of New York, and Bryant Lawson and other individual plaintiffs from a District of Columbia suit filed a petition for writ of certiorari in October 2008. The gun suits from New York City and the District of Columbia date back to 2000.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT