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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT