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

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT