ILNews

High court to hear riverboat receipts arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in two cases involving the dispersion of a percentage of riverboat casino revenues in East Chicago.

At 9 a.m., the justices will hear City of East Chicago v. East Chicago Second Century, et al., No. 49S02-0808-CV-436. The city wanted the trial court to find void the agreement it had with Resorts East Chicago for the riverboat to distribute 3 percent of its future adjusted gross receipts to two non-profits and the city to fund economic development in East Chicago. The city wanted to direct the entire 3 percent to East Chicago, plus the 0.75 percent directed to Second Century, a for-profit that would assist the riverboat as a "catalyst" for economic development.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in favor of East Chicago and held that all nine of the city's counterclaims should be dismissed on statute limitations grounds.

At 9:45 a.m., justices will hear Steve Carter, Indiana Attorney Genera v. East Chicago Second Century, et al., No. 49S02-0808-CV-437, in which the attorney general intervened in the East Chicago action. Carter sought an imposition of a public charitable trust or a constructive trust over the 0.75 percent of revenue distributed to Second Century. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court dismissal of the attorney general's counterclaim and cross claim. The trial court found Carter had no authority to assert his counterclaim and cross claim against Second Century and its principals for imposition of a constructive trust and an accounting of the money.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT