ILNews

Justices schedule high-profile arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Justices will waste little time getting to high-profile cases when they hear a new slate of oral arguments after Labor Day. The Indiana Supreme Court has scheduled 20 arguments beginning Sept. 5 and continuing for the next few months.

The oral argument calendar may be viewed here.

First up is the Rockport coal-gasification appeal in which a divided Indiana Court of Appeals voided  the Indiana Finance Authority’s contract for the sale and purchase of substitute natural gas that would be produced at the plant proposed in Gibson County on the Ohio River.

Indiana Gasification LLC’s parent company, Leucadia National Corp., announced it had suspended work on the Rockport site after lawmakers passed and Gov. Mike Pence signed legislation that left the matter largely for the court to decide and added the likelihood of a new round of regulatory review even if the court finds the contract valid. The suit, Indiana Gas Company , Inc. v. Indiana Finance Authority, 93S02-1306-EX-407, is set for oral argument at 9 a.m. Sept. 5.

The following Thursday, the court will hear oral argument to determine if it will grant transfer in a case that has attracted national interest from First Amendment advocates.

Arguments in Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana, 15A01-1110-CR-550, are set for 9 a.m. Sept. 12. Brewington, a blogger in Dearborn County, continues to serve a sentence at the Department of Correction imposed in 2011 for online rants and alleged threats he posted about a judge who stripped him of custody of his children.

Another case regarding online comments will come before the court on Sept. 26. The court will hear an appeal of Indiana Newspapers, Inc. v. Jeffrey M. Miller, et al., 49S02-1305-PL-311. Miller has asked The Indianapolis Star to produce the identity of an online commenter who posted allegedly defamatory comments about Miller, a former Junior Achievement executive. A Marion Superior Court ordered the Star to provide identifiers, and a divided Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.


 

 

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. 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."

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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT