ILNews

Justices asked to accept judicial review case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A national business group and several state associations want the Indiana Supreme Court to take a case that could impact judicial review of state administrative agency rules, particularly those that may be outside an agency's authority to address.

Seeking to overturn rulings from two lower courts, the four organizations representing thousands of Hoosier businesses and the City of Indianapolis have teamed up on an appeal they say extends beyond this particular case and threatens businesses that are subject to Indiana administrative law and state agency regulation.

Justices are being asked to consider LHT Capital LLC v. Indiana Horse Racing Commission, et al., No. 49A02-0712-CV-1149, which the Court of Appeals decided in an Aug. 7 opinion and addressed again in an October rehearing denial. Those published decisions affirmed Marion Superior Judge Gerald Zore's dismissal of the complaint in favor of the state commission on grounds that LHT didn't exhaust all its administrative remedies when it challenged the commission's rules and regulations.

The case stems from an emergency rule that led to a $9 million fee as part of a deal to sell off a minority interest in Indiana Downs horse racing track in Shelbyville. After lawmakers allowed slot machines at the horse racing casinos, the Indiana Horse Racing Commission, which reviews slot machine licensing, adopted an emergency rule allowing it to impose ownership transfer fees. The commission imposed a $9 million fee on LHT, and the company paid the fee in order to move ahead with the minority ownership transfer before a Nov. 1, 2007, deadline to pay a license fee to add slot machines. But the company objected to the validity of the emergency rule and subsequent fee, which it claimed wasn't authorized by legislators.

Judge Zore and the appellate court both decided that LHT hadn't exhausted its required administrative remedies. But LHT argues that it shouldn't have to exhaust those remedies because the agency can't address constitutional issues, and raising it before those officials would be futile since the regulation is void on its face and beyond the agency's granted powers to address.

The appellate court disagreed, noting that LHT should have raised that issue before the Indiana Horse Racing Commission instead of negotiating a settlement to move the process forward, and that the company could have filed a declaratory judgment action that may have resulted in a different outcome.

A handful of associations and entities - the City of Indianapolis, Indiana Bankers Association, Indiana Health Care Association, Indiana Beverage Alliance, and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center - have joined together as amici curiae parties asking the justices to take the case and overturn the trial court's dismissal judgment.

The group isn't suggesting that parties can skip the administrative process and proceed directly to court whenever there may be constitutional issues on the existence or scope of agency authority, the amici brief says. But it wants to ensure judicial review exists for businesses going before those agencies.

In its petition to transfer, LHT's attorney, James Bopp of Terre Haute, argues that the Court of Appeals decision goes against precedent from the state's Supreme Court and that the decision could hurt Hoosier businesses if allowed to stand.

"To uphold the dismissal of this case is to tell Indiana businesses that they better play the State's game of paying whatever 'bribes' are required by unlawful agency rules, or lose their licenses to do business here," the petition states. "Hearings on petitions for licenses or changes in ownership of licenses won't be set until businesses acquiesce to agency demands, and no judicial review is permitted under the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals."

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. 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.

  2. 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."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT