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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT