Supreme Court of the United States

Lecture to look at SCOTUS ethics

October 16, 2012
IL Staff
The Tabor Institute on Legal Ethics topic this year at Valparaiso University Law School is United States Supreme Court ethics in the wake of NFIB v. Seblius.
More

Indiana farmer’s tangle with seed producer over patent infringement gets SCOTUS review

October 8, 2012
Marilyn Odendahl
The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review a federal appeals court decision regarding patent infringement in a case involving an Indiana farmer and a seed producer.
More

SCOTUS declines Indiana robo-call case

October 2, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Supreme Court of the United States came back for its 2012 session Monday and decided it will not take the appeal filed by a provider of prerecorded telephonic messages seeking to overturn enforcement of a ban on automated robo-calls in Indiana.
More

Immigration law challenge moves forward in Northern District

August 15, 2012
IL Staff
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich in Hammond Tuesday granted the state’s unopposed motion to lift the stay of a lawsuit in the Northern District challenging portions of Indiana’s immigration law dealing with employment.
More

Federal courts rule against overtime in pharmaceutical cases

August 1, 2012
Marilyn Odendahl
In a pair of decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals examined different exemption provisions to overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act but reached the same conclusion: Pharmaceutical sales representatives are not entitled to overtime pay.
More

US Supreme Court: Criminal fines require jury finding

July 18, 2012
Dave Stafford
An end-of-term U.S. Supreme Court decision did far more than reduce a penalty in a federal criminal environmental judgment from $18 million to $50,000. It created a new reality for how the government will have to pursue such prosecutions in the future, experts say.
More

Indiana's immigration law reeling

July 4, 2012
Dave Stafford
Attorneys say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Arizona case likely dooms parts of Indiana's law.
More

US Supreme Court rules on Stolen Valor Act case

June 28, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
While the health care decision was the ruling most people were waiting to hear, the justices also issued decisions in two other cases Thursday. The nation’s highest court found the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional.
More

High court ruling opens Medicaid escape hatch for states

June 28, 2012
J.K. Wall
While upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday also opened an escape hatch for states that do not want to take on the project of expanding their Medicaid programs.
More

U.S. justices rule on challenges to health care law

June 28, 2012
IL Staff
The U.S. Supreme Court released its highly anticipated decision on the challenges brought by states and other organizations to the Affordable Care Act.
More

SCOTUS rules on immigration case, life sentences for juveniles

June 25, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday affirmed in part and reversed in part Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The justices also found that a life sentence without possibility of parole for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment.
More

SCOTUS rules on FCC case, still no health care decision

June 21, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The highly anticipated decision by the United States Supreme Court on health care will come another day. The justices released four opinions Thursday, which did not include the challenges to the health care law. They did decide the case before them involving the Federal Communications Commission.
More

Indianapolis prevails in US high court on sewer tax case; residents, attorneys stung

June 20, 2012
Dave Stafford
Thirty-one Indianapolis property owners who paid as much as 30 times more than their neighbors for sewer service got resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court in their lawsuit against the city. They lost.
More

US Supreme Court asked to take robo-call case

June 19, 2012
IL Staff
An Indiana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s Autodialer Law is now being challenged after a petition was filed with the nation’s highest court.
More

SCOTUS enters term's final weeks; issues 4 opinions

June 18, 2012
Dave Stafford
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued opinions on four cases.
More

SCOTUS rules in favor of Indianapolis in sewer dispute

June 4, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Monday that the city of Indianapolis did not violate the Federal Equal Protection Clause when it refused to refund money to residents who paid the in-full assessment up front for sewer work.
More

U.S. justices to rule on retroactivity of case involving guilty pleas by immigrants

April 30, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that stems from its 2010 decision Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the justices held that criminal defense attorneys are obligated under the Sixth Amendment to advise noncitizen defendants about immigration consequences of pleading guilty. The justices will now rule on whether its decision is retroactive.<
More

Gene patent case back at Circuit court

April 11, 2012
IL Staff
Myriad Genetics, Inc. reported on March 26 that the United States Supreme Court remanded The Association for Molecular Pathology, et al., v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 11-725, to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The Federal Circuit will now reconsider its July 29, 2011, decision, which upheld Myriad’s patents on two breast cancer genes – known collectively as BRCA 1/2
More

SCOTUS declines to take Indiana criminal case

March 26, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States won’t take an Indiana case asking whether a defendant’s second trial was barred by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, and so a state Supreme Court decision on the issue will stand.
More

IU Maurer professors to discuss affirmative action case

February 24, 2012
IL Staff
A panel of Indiana University constitutional law experts will discuss the implications of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision to hear Fisher v. Texas, a case challenging the University of Texas' affirmative action program.
More

SCOTUS denies 4 Indiana cases, issues order in pending appeal

February 21, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to hear four cases from Indiana, and it has asked the federal government to weigh in on a pending appeal about alleged workplace harassment involving Ball State University.
More

Cameras in SCOTUS bill referred to full Senate

February 10, 2012
IL Staff
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation Thursday that will allow cameras in the Supreme Court of the United States. The measure, S.1945, was approved by an 11-7 vote.
More

SCOTUS rules on scope of sex offender registration law

January 23, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that a federal law requiring sex offenders to update their registration when crossing states lines doesn’t automatically apply to those who committed their crimes before the law was passed.
More

SCOTUS won't consider off-campus school speech

January 17, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The nation’s highest court has declined to take a pair of cases asking whether schools can censor the off-campus behavior of students who post messages or photos against school officials or other students.
More

SCOTUS denies Indiana church dispute

January 9, 2012
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take an Indiana case involving a property and trustee election dispute between the Zion Temple Apostolic Church in Gary and the son of the deceased founding pastor.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >> 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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT