ILNews

Indiana justices deny 8 cases, plus associational standing appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court declined to take eight cases last week, and by a split vote the court also reversed a prior decision to hear an electric utility’s appeal based on an associational standing question.

In a transfer disposition order, the state’s highest court declined a total of nine cases, including Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp., et al. v. Save the Valley, et al., No. 49A02-1011-MI-1178, that had previously been granted transfer in February.

The Court of Appeals ruled on the case in August, finding that it had already ruled on an associational standing question six years ago in the same case and that the electric utility was trying to re-litigate that issue. The court declined to revisit the case, based on the law-of-the-case doctrine. Particularly, the intermediate appellate judges rejected IKEC claims that the state justices didn’t adequately consider a similar case pending at the time, even though the original Court of Appeals panel did address that issue and the Supreme Court denied transfer.

The Court of Appeals panel also dismissed arguments that the precedent wasn’t valid because the justices later issued K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006), and the electric utility contended that voided the Save the Valley issue of associational standing. But after granting transfer earlier this year, a March 22 order from the Supreme Court says that the Court of Appeals decision from last year is reinstated.

Acting Chief Justice Brent Dickson signed the order and Justices Frank Sullivan and Robert Rucker concurred, although Justices Randall T. Shepard and Steven David voted to grant transfer.

The other cases denied transfer are: Outboard Boating Club of Evansville, Inc., and Small-Craft Boaters, Inc. v. Indiana State Department of Health, No. 82A01-1102-PL-52; The Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: D.H.H. & A.M.H., and Carrie Crawford v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, No. 71A03-1107-JT-322; Charles Lawrence, Sr. v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-1105-CR-194; Jason B. Forrest v. State of Indiana, No. 91A05-1106-CR-324; Joseph A. Taylor v. Alan P. Finnan, No. 48A02-1105-MI-547; In Re: The Order of Contempt Against Craig Benson, Martinsville Depot, Inc., and SBS Enterprises, Inc. v. Co-Alliance, LLP, No. 55A04-1010-CC-646; Thomas M. Slaats v. Sally E. Slaats, No. 87A01-1009-DR-523; and Shawnee Construction and Engineering v. Don C. Stanley, Jr, No. 02A04-1010-CT-610, in which Dickson voted to grant transfer.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT