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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT