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. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT