ILNews

Justices remind parties about decision certification

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a rehearing on the appeal involving East Chicago casino money, using the chance to warn parties to not jump the gun in how it responds once an appellate ruling is initially issued.

Issuing a three-page rehearing petition ruling today in Foundations of East Chicago, Inc., Successor by Merger to East Chicago Community Development Foundation, Inc. and Twin City Education Foundation, Inc. v. City of East Chicago, No. 49S02-0908-CV-00383, the justices unanimously clarified an earlier mandate but mostly left intact its original opinion from May.

In that earlier ruling, the justices reversed a decision by Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid that had gone in favor of the city on the case involving a casino-revenue agreement in East Chicago. The case involves two non-profit entities that received riverboat casino revenue through a local development agreement with the city. But East Chicago officials later redirected to the city some of the money that had been going to the successor of the two non-profits by using an ordinance allowed through Section 302 of the 2007 state budget bill, which gave municipalities the ability to void terms of these agreements ultimately signed off on by the Indiana Gaming Commission. The Foundations sued, and Judge Reid ruled for the city and found the Foundations didn't have standing to sue but left open a question about statute constitutionality.

The Supreme Court previously bypassed that constitutionality question. They determined the Foundations has standing, but on the issue of whether the Foundations is able to receive funds under the gaming license as the two non-profit predecessors did, the justices left that open as an administrative law matter the gaming commission should decide.

Following that decision, the Foundations reported that before the Indiana Supreme Court decision had been certified, the city had moved the trial court to terminate the escrow account into which the license holder’s economic development contributions have been deposited, as well as return the account balance to East Chicago.

“The motion was, of course, premature under the appellate rules,” Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote, citing Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E) that stipulates parties shouldn’t take any action relying on an appellate opinion or memorandum until that ruling is certified. “The trial court rightly denied the City’s request on that ground alone.”

But taking it a step further, the chief justice wrote that the city’s motion for an order directing that the escrow funds be transferred to East Chicago should also be denied on the merits, even if timely filed. The reason was that the request fell within the core of the justices’ previous decision that was adverse to the city’s position that it possessed unilateral authority to redirect the funds.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend in December, but U.S. District Judge Robert Miller later reduced that to about $540,000 to put the damages for suffering under the statutory cap of $300,000.

  2. I was trying to remember, how did marriage get gay in Kentucky, did the people vote for it? Ah no, of course not. It was imposed by judicial fiat. The voted-for official actually represents the will of the majority in the face of an unelected federal judiciary. But democracy only is just a slogan for the powerful, they trot it out when they want and call it bigotry etc when they don't.

  3. Ah yes... Echoes of 1963 as a ghostly George Wallace makes his stand at the Schoolhouse door. We now know about the stand of personal belief over service to all constituents at the Carter County Clerk door. The results are the same, bigotry unable to follow the directions of the courts and the courts win. Interesting to watch the personal belief take a back seat rather than resign from a perception of local power to make the statement.

  4. An oath of office, does it override the conscience? That is the defense of overall soldier who violates higher laws, isnt it? "I was just following orders" and "I swore an oath of loyalty to der Fuhrer" etc. So this is an interesting case of swearing a false oath and then knowing that it was wrong and doing the right thing. Maybe they should chop her head off too like the "king's good servant-- but God's first" like St Thomas More. ...... We wont hold our breath waiting for the aclu or other "civil liberterians" to come to her defense since they are all arrayed on the gay side, to a man or should I say to a man and womyn?

  5. Perhaps we should also convene a panel of independent anthropological experts to study the issues surrounding this little-known branch of human sacrifice?

ADVERTISEMENT