Oral arguments

Supreme Court hears arguments in victims' advocates subpoena case

February 17, 2011
Rebecca Berfanger
The Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments today involving the subpoena of records from a domestic violence agency by a defendant who had been charged with two counts of Class A felony child molesting.
More

Same firm, but different cases before Supreme Court on same day

February 2, 2011
Michael Hoskins
For appellate attorneys Paul Jefferson and Mark Crandley at Barnes & Thornburg, this double-argument day Jan. 20 was a new experience that many say isn’t very common in the legal community.
More

Justices hear 3 cases, including robo-calls appeal

January 20, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court heard three arguments this morning, including one case that it had granted emergency transfer to regarding whether the state should be constitutionally allowed to restrict robo-calls to residents.
More

Arguments set in Medicaid appeal

January 19, 2011
Rebecca Berfanger
In a case that involves whether Medicaid applicants who were rejected can include information that was not in their initial applications when they appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court has set oral arguments for March 3 at 9 a.m.
More

SCOTUS hears Indiana case

January 19, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Indiana Federal Community Defender Bill Marsh made his debut appearance before the nation’s highest court on Jan. 12, arguing an Indiana case that questions whether vehicular flight from police is considered “violent” and warrants a higher sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
More

Indiana Supreme Court to hear arguments on victim-advocate privilege

January 5, 2011
Rebecca Berfanger
Domestic violence victims’ advocates and criminal law attorneys are waiting on the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in a case involving a criminal defendant’s subpoena for records from a victim’s advocacy organization.
More

COA to visit high school for oral arguments

November 11, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in a trespass and resisting law enforcement case at an Indianapolis high school Nov. 16.
More

Appellate court travels for arguments

October 18, 2010
IL Staff
As part of its “Appeals on Wheels” initiative, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hit the road this week to hear arguments.
More

Law school hosts appellate hearings

October 13, 2010
IL Staff
Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington recently hosted two appellate hearings at the law school’s moot court room.
More

7th Circuit mulls adult-business laws

September 29, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether a Southern District of Indiana judge correctly weighed evidence in granting a preliminary injunction that stopped Indianapolis from enforcing a 2002 ordinance regulating adult-business hours.
More

Justices to hear arguments at Bloomington law school

September 10, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court travels to Bloomington Monday to hear arguments in the case of a teenage girl who was injured by a golf ball while driving the beverage cart at a golf outing.
More

Supreme Court uses PBS to educate public on courts

August 31, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court is teaming up with the state’s Public Broadcasting Service to offer specials informing residents about the court system.
More

Technical difficulties snag high-profile appeal arguments

August 25, 2010
Michael Hoskins
After a hiccup in the state judiciary’s online access to oral arguments, Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker borrowed some words from television broadcasters of the past: “Please stand by.”
More

7th Circuit rehears Second Amendment case

May 21, 2010
Rebecca Berfanger
7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges in Chicago didn’t take the issue of Second Amendment rights lightly when they heard oral arguments en banc Thursday for United States of America v. Steven M. Skoien, No. 08-3770.
More

Attorney's 6th SCOTUS visit intense

May 12, 2010
Michael Hoskins
A Terre Haute lawyer made his sixth argument before the nation’s highest court April 28, and he describes the hour-long experience to be the most intense of those he’s had before the Supreme Court of the United States.
More

Justices to hear card-counting case Wednesday

April 5, 2010
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases Wednesday, including whether a casino can ban someone who counts cards.
More

Appellate court to hear arguments in Lafayette

March 30, 2010
IL Staff
A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals will visit Ivy Tech Community College in Lafayette Thursday to hear the appeal of a man challenging his sentence for dealing cocaine.
More

COA to hear arguments at IU-Indy

March 19, 2010
IL StaffMore

Justices hear voter ID case arguments

March 17, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments March 4 about the state's controversial voter identification law, and is considering whether the requirements impose an unconstitutional burden on some voters who can't obtain the necessary photo ID cards.
More

Justice ponders importance of party-line vote

March 5, 2010
Michael Hoskins
As the Indiana Supreme Court justices considered the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law this week, one jurist wondered how much the legislative process might factor into the court's analysis of whether a statute is constitutional.
More

Court hears state voter ID case

March 4, 2010
Michael Hoskins
The Indiana Supreme Court on Thursday morning sharply questioned attorneys about the state's five-year-old voter identification law, debating whether the requirements impose an unconstitutional burden on some voters who can't obtain the necessary photo ID.
More

Indiana attorney set for SCOTUS Wednesday

January 27, 2010
Michael Hoskins
A Terre Haute attorney is making his sixth argument before the nation's highest court Wednesday, but his first before the newest justice. This time he's there on a case that could ultimately change campaign-finance disclosure rules nationally.
More

Justices to hear cheek swab, blood draw cases

January 13, 2010
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court is set to hear three arguments Thursday, including a case that challenges whether reasonable suspicion alone is sufficient for law enforcement to obtain DNA from a cheek swab.
More

Justices consider 'youth program center' issue

November 24, 2009
Michael Hoskins
Walter Whatley isn't disputing the fact that he was in possession of cocaine and that he should be held accountable for that.Instead, the Indianapolis defendant argues that he shouldn't have been convicted of Class A felony cocaine possession, which is what he was charged with given that he had the cocaine within 1,000 feet of a "youth program center" or a church near his home, where police arrested him after finding more than three grams of the illegal substance on him.
More

Justices hear compulsive gambling arguments

November 12, 2009
Michael Hoskins
State gaming regulations prohibit a compulsive gambler from even filing a lawsuit against a casino, a New Albany attorney told the Indiana Supreme Court today.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 >> pager
Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT