Gregory Zoeller, et al. v. James Sweeney, et al. - 9/4/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  September 4, 2014 
9:00 AM  EST

9 a.m. 45S00-1309-PL-596. Sweeney and others (collectively "the Union") filed a complaint in the Lake Superior Court against the Attorney General and the Labor Department Commissioner (collectively "the State") seeking a declaratory judgment that Indiana's "right-to-work law” violated several provisions of the state constitution. The State moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The trial court ruled that two provisions, Indiana Code sections 22-6-6-8 and -10, violate Article 1, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution because they demand particular services from unions without just compensation, and entered a declaratory judgment. The trial court granted the State's motion as to the remaining counts and dismissed them. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over this direct appeal (civil) because the trial court declared a state statute unconstitutional. See Ind. Appellate Rule 4(A)(1)(b).

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT