Indianapolis, Illinois?

August 19, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
According to one 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion today, Indianapolis is now a part of our neighboring state to the west. I opened Angela Tyson v. Gannett Co. Inc., aware this would be an Indiana case. Lo and behold, I was right – sort of.

The Indianapolis Division of the U.S. District Court is in the Southern District of Indiana, as we all know, but just for today, the division has temporarily relocated to Illinois. According to the opinion, the Indianapolis Division is now in the Southern District of Illinois.

I don’t see too many slipups by the federal appellate court, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen them attribute a division to the wrong state. Was it oversight by the court clerk or is this a sign that Sens. Barack Obama and Evan Bayh have fostered a deal that not only will they be running mates in 2008, but they have unified their two home states? Maybe the 7th Circuit knows something we don’t know.

Chances are, a corrected opinion will be on the court’s Web site by the end of the day or tomorrow, but for now, it’s just funny to see Indianapolis, Illinois.

UPDATE: On Friday, Aug. 22, the 7th Circuit posted an order in that case correcting the error about the court location, as well as another on the second page involving Tyson's employer, Gannett, owner of the newspaper known as the Indianapolis Star.
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
  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