Indianapolis, Illinois?

August 19, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. Interesting that the new laws in criminal code all involve voter fraud

  2. I'm getting divorced and we have prenuptial and judge said it stands even though he made me sign it 2 days before wedding then I be c ame ill and left with nothing butbills

  3. No irony here, John. Conour’s clients are wise to him. Evidently you’ve missed discovery that disclosed Conour was aware he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, actually many cookie jars, but continued to spend any monies he secured on himself and his lifestyle. Your theory is idealistic and assumes Conour has the soul of a good attorney and therefore he would take care of his clients. Conour has no soul. He greedily took awarded settlements from his disabled clients and spent it on his own edacious desires. You are naïve to think if he kept working he would put his fees into a restitution fund. He is who he is and has proven he will use any means to cheat and manipulate those who trust him and the judicial system that is supposed to protect them. Sorry John, you don’t send the fox back into the hen house after he’s caught devouring the hens. Conour can’t be trusted. He has no more honor than that fox.

  4. The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.

  5. the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution

ADVERTISEMENT