East Chicago

Racketeering case nets $108 million in damages

March 12, 2010
Michael Hoskins
A federal judge has ordered an ex-mayor and top allies to pay more than $108 million in damages on a civil racketeering case, but in doing so he's rejected the Indiana Attorney General's most novel and far-reaching legal arguments centered on public corruption in East Chicago.
More

AG opposes East Chicago settlement terms

February 19, 2010
IL Staff
Indiana's Attorney General opposes a proposed settlement between the city of East Chicago and a developer regarding riverboat casino revenues because it would grant additional money to that developer at a time when the state is suing to open up the financial books.
More

Feds indict East Chicago mayor, former official

February 4, 2010
Michael Hoskins
Another East Chicago mayor is now being charged in the federal court for alleged misuse of public money, and defense attorneys say they'll go to trial to fight the charges.
More

Company filed suit within applicable limitations

December 30, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
A construction company's attempt to cast itself in the same class of professionals as attorneys or architects was rejected by the Indiana Court of Appeals today. The appellate court upheld on interlocutory appeal the denial of the company's motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract complaint.
More

Justices issue ruling in casino revenue case

June 30, 2009
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court ruled today on an ongoing appeal about how casino revenue is funneled to a for-profit organization in East Chicago, an issue that has also been raised in an ongoing federal racketeering suit in northern Indiana.
More

Lawyers ask for $3 or $109 million in RICO case

June 23, 2009
Michael Hoskins
A federal judge is being asked to impose damages ranging anywhere from $3 to $109 million in a landmark racketeering suit.
More

AG targets East Chicago corruption

June 3, 2009
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Attorney General's Office wants a federal court to order an audit of East Chicago that might reveal the need for more oversight of a city that's endured a racketeering vote-buying enterprise carried out by a former mayor and multiple city officials.
More

Judge to decide fate of Sidewalk 6 defendants

May 26, 2009
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Attorney General personally attended a civil racketeering court hearing this morning in Hammond, a rare in-person appearance that comes in the civil case against a former East Chicago mayor and a top aide.
More

Sidewalk 6 trial off; judge to decide penalty

May 21, 2009
Michael Hoskins
Less than a week before a state civil racketeering trial was set to begin, a former East Chicago mayor and one of his closest aides have waived their right to defend themselves before a jury in court.
More

Sidewalk Six defendant settles with state

May 18, 2009
Michael Hoskins
What began a decade ago and became known as the Sidewalk Six paving-for-votes scandal is now nearing an end as one of the three remaining defendants in the civil racketeering case has settled with the state.
More

High court rules in favor of AG in casino case

April 14, 2009
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the state's attorney general in a suit for constructive trust and unjust enrichment against a for-profit corporation receiving contributions from a casino, finding the trial court erred in dismissing the claims.
More

Update: Transfer denied in early-voting case

October 24, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court has denied a request from two Lake County Republicans to hear an appeal challenging an order to keep early-voting satellite locations open.
More

High court to hear riverboat receipts arguments

October 22, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in two cases involving the dispersion of a percentage of riverboat casino revenues in East Chicago.
More

Venue transfer hinges on type of organization

November 14, 2007
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to change venues because the Indiana High School Athletic Association didn't meet its burden as a governmental organization needed under Indiana Trial Rule 75 to affirm the motion.
More
Page  << 1 2 pager
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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT