Supreme Court of the United States

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

Federal Circuit hears judges' pay case

December 19, 2011
Michael Hoskins
A federal appellate court heard arguments Friday in a case that could ultimately decide if Congress has the authority to withhold judicial pay increases as it’s done in the past or whether cost-of-living adjustments are required.
More

Knowing the possible consequences

November 23, 2011
Michael Hoskins
Legal community works to ensure defendants know plea agreements could impact immigration status.
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

Federal court addresses resentencing issue

October 25, 2011
Michael Hoskins
A federal appellate court’s general remand for resentencing doesn’t necessarily mean a defendant will receive a lesser penalty or be able to introduce new arguments, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
More

AG holds second civil, criminal justice summits

October 21, 2011
IL Staff
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller held his second annual Civil and Criminal Justice summits this week at Indiana University School of Law — Indianapolis, focusing on financial protections for military service members and crime lab evidence in trials.
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

Indiana asks U.S. Supreme Court to take health care law challenge

September 28, 2011
IL Staff
Indiana and 25 other states have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States asking the nation’s highest court to rule on a lawsuit involving the Affordable Care Act.
More

7th Circuit holds lawyer rule on impact of guilty plea for immigrants not retroactive

August 24, 2011
Michael Hoskins
A three-judge panel for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined a landmark decision from the Supreme Court of the United States last year isn't retroactive. That rule required criminal defense attorneys to advise clients about the immigration impact of signing a guilty plea, and this means past cases wouldn’t benefit from that holding even if those individuals had been deprived of that Sixth Amendment right.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> 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