ILNews

High court to hear legislative fines appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has taken the appeal of a Marion County judge’s decision that ordered Democratic members of the Indiana House be refunded the money withheld from their paychecks due to a walkout in 2011.

State Auditor Tim Berry and other state defendants asked the Supreme Court to rule on the matter after Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer held this week that the Democratic representatives should be reimbursed any amount withheld in 2011 and shouldn’t be fined for walking out during the 2012 session.

Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, and other state representatives filed the lawsuit challenging the legality of the fines being deducted from their salary and per diem compensation.

The justices stayed the portion of the ruling that requires the state auditor to immediately pay the withheld amounts. The portion of the trial court’s order enjoining the auditor, Indiana house principal clerk, and the state from withholding the fines, and all other portions of the trial court’s order on final judgment, remain in effect until further order from the justices.

The Supreme Court granted transfer Jan. 27 to review the decision by Dreyer that held the trial court did not have jurisdiction to review the House of Representative’s internal discipline when it came to compelling attendance or assessing fines during the 2011 legislative session, but that it did have jurisdiction to review the manner in which the fines were collected. The justices consolidated the two appeals, but documents filed in the consolidated appeal will bear both Supreme Court cause numbers.

 

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT