ILNews

SCOTUS declines New Albany ordinance case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States won’t take a case from New Albany about the city’s battle to close an adult book and movie store.

Denying a writ of certiorari request in New Albany v. New Albany DVD LLC, No. 09-1027, the nation’s top justices declined to accept a case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS allowed the Indiana Family Institute and International Municipal Lawyers Association to file amicus briefs in the case, but denied the petition for writ of certiorari. This was the second case the justices declined to take from Indiana last week.

That means a 7th Circuit decision from September remains in place; the city must present clear evidence that the adult bookstore is causing excessive litter, crime, or other problems before it can impose additional restrictions on its operations. The store can remain open pending a hearing on those issues. Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis had ruled against the city, granting an injunction that stopped New Albany from enforcing its ordinance and allowing the store to remain open.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT