U.S. Supreme Court certiorari

US justices take death row appeals, Virginia redistricting case

June 6, 2016
 Associated Press
The Supreme Court of the United States accepted three cases Monday, including two that claim race is a factor.
More

High court won't review Michigan murder case

November 30, 2015
 Associated Press
The Supreme Court of the United States said Monday that it won't consider reinstating the conviction of a Michigan man charged with a 1988 murder in a drug dispute.
More

SCOTUS rejects 3 Indiana cases

October 6, 2014
Dave Stafford
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday declined to review a ruling that struck down Indianapolis’ limits on the hours that adult bookstores can operate.
More

US Supreme Court declines to take Indiana Planned Parenthood cases

May 28, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday denied certiorari to two cases stemming from an Indiana law disqualifying a health care provider in participating in a government program because it provides abortion care.
More

SCOTUS declines church property dispute case

April 29, 2013
Jennifer Nelson
The Supreme Court of the United States will not take a case involving a dispute between churches over property.
More

SCOTUS declines review of injunction against Medicaid cap on dental work

April 22, 2013
IL Staff
The Supreme Court of the United States will leave undisturbed a ruling that blocked state efforts to cap dental work for Medicaid recipients at $1,000 per year.
More

Indiana authors SCOTUS brief on legislative prayer

January 9, 2013
IL Staff
Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher drafted an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court of the United States Monday in Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, 12-696. The brief, joined by 17 other states, asks the nation’s highest court to grant cert petition and issue a ruling clarifying that prayer is permitted before legislative bodies without requiring leaders to screen prayers for sectarian references.
More

SCOTUS to hear Indiana farmer’s case against Monsanto in February

January 7, 2013
Marilyn Odendahl
A patent infringement case involving a Knox County soybean farmer and an international seed producer will be argued Feb. 19 before the Supreme Court of the United States.
More

Justices hear arguments in Ball State case

November 26, 2012
Jennifer Nelson
In a case that hinges on the definition of “supervisor,” the United States Supreme Court heard arguments Monday morning in a lawsuit filed by a Ball State University employee.
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

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

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

Supreme Court to hear Affordable Care Act challenges

November 14, 2011
Michael Hoskins
In what’s expected to be a historic constitutional test over how much power the federal government has to require individual mandates for states, the Supreme Court of the United States will consider the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.
More

SCOTUS takes Indianapolis sewer payment case

November 14, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari in a case that questions whether the city of Indianapolis violated the federal Constitution in how it handled refunds for residents who paid assessments on local sewer projects.
More

SCOTUS won't take Indiana bar exam case

October 11, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take several Indiana cases, including a federal suit against the state’s Board of Law Examiners filed by a man who wants to take the bar exam without going to law school.
More

SCOTUS doesn't take any Indiana cases

October 3, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take several Indiana cases, including a criminal appeal about whether a stun belt restraint on a defendant during trial and sentencing is prejudicial.
More

SCOTUS denies case between Indiana agencies on 11th Amendment

April 25, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The Supreme Court of the United States won’t take an Indiana case which delved into whether the 11th Amendment prohibits an independent state agency from suing a traditional state agency in federal court.
More

SCOTUS declines to consider Indiana case

January 10, 2011
Michael Hoskins
The nation’s highest court has refused to consider an Indiana case involving whether a defendant’s no contest plea to an out-of-state murder can be used to qualify him as a serious violent felon on a conviction here.
More

SCOTUS takes case on whether vehicular flight from police is a 'violent felony'

December 8, 2010
Michael Hoskins
No one disputes fleeing in a vehicle from police is a crime. But whether that crime is considered a “violent” one worthy of an enhanced sentence under a long-standing federal career criminal statute is a legal nuance now an issue before the nation’s highest court, and Indiana is playing a key role.
More
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT