ILNews

Indiana justices to rule on Evansville smoking ban

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted two cases last week for transfer, a pair of rulings from Vanderburgh County on the city of Evansville’s ordinance prohibiting smoking in certain places.

In 2006, the Evansville Common Council adopted an ordinance that prohibited smoking in workplaces and other public places in Evansville but exempted bars, private clubs and riverboats. On Feb. 13, 2012, the council adopted City of Evansville Ordinance G-2012-1 Amended with an effective date of April 1, 2012. The amended ordinance prohibits smoking in bars and private clubs but permits smoking on riverboats.

In separate lawsuits, VFW Posts and other fraternal organizations and the owners of numerous bars sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that Ordinance G-2012-1 Amended violates Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution. The lawsuit filed by the fraternal organizations also claimed the ordinance violates Article 1, Section 9. The trial court denied relief in both cases and the Court of Appeals affirmed on Feb. 15.

The smoking-ban lawsuits, Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Harbor Bay, et al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council, 82S01-1306-CT-436; and VFW Post 2953, et al. v. City of Evansville and Evansville Common Council, 82S01-1306-PL-437, are the only cases the Supreme Court took last week; it denied transfer to 25 cases. The complete list is available on the court’s website.

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. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  2. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  3. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  4. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  5. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

ADVERTISEMENT