ILNews

State Supreme Court to decide Indiana-IBM dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state Supreme Court will decide a dispute between the state of Indiana and IBM over the company's failed attempt to privatize public welfare services.

The Indianapolis Star reports Justice Mark Massa has recused himself because he was general counsel to former Gov. Mitch Daniels.

IBM won the $1.4 billion contract after Daniels signed off on privatization in 2006, but the state canceled the contract in 2009 because of complaints.

The two sides sued each other in 2010. The state was seeking the return of more than $437 million. A Marion County judge awarded $52 million to IBM in 2012.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in February found IBM failed to deliver its part of the deal, but found it was still entitled to nearly $50 million in fees.

The Supreme Court granted transfer in three other cases for the week ending Aug. 8:

  • State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service v. Settlers Life Insurance Company, 49S05-1408-PL-514. In March, the Court of Appeals affirmed a Marion Superior ruling that a company that sells an insurance policy with the option to assign it to a trust to use the funds for funeral services is not subject to the Pre-Need Act.
  • Dustin E. McCowan v. State of Indiana, 64S03-1408-CR-516. In April, the Court of Appeals affirmed McCowan’s murder conviction, finding that under the totality of the circumstances, McCowan’s rights weren’t violated when police conducted a warrantless search of his cell phone to obtain records, texts and location of calls.
  • In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., a Minor, 41S04-1408-AD-515. The Court of Appeals affirmed  denial of grandparents’ motions seeking relief from an adoption decree by child’s stepfather. Grandparents seek custody of a child they raised from birth to 27 months old.

Supreme Court transfer disposition lists may be viewed here.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT