Home » Search

Search Results

7343 results for 'articles'

To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search

Opinions Sept. 10, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Indiana Family Institute Inc., et al. v. City of Carmel, et al.
19A-MI-2991
Miscellaneous. Affirms the grant of summary judgment to the cities of Bloomington, Carmel, Columbus and Indianapolis on the complaint brought by the Indiana Family Institute, Indiana Family Action and the American Family Association challenging the “fix” to the 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Hamilton Superior Court’s denial of a motion for judicial notice. Finds the plaintiff-appellants have not demonstrated that nondiscrimination ordinances in the defendant cities have interfered with or chilled their First Amendment rights. Also finds they are not facing the threat of an impending injury or a substantial risk of harm from the nondiscrimination ordinances. Declines to address the appellants’ arguments regarding judicial review.

‘Deadly stuff’: Trump’s own words bring focus back to virus

| Associated Press

Try as he might to change the subject, President Donald Trump can’t escape the coronavirus. “I wanted to always play it down,” Trump said of the threat from the virus. That was in a private conversation with journalist Bob Woodward last March that became public on Wednesday with the publication of excerpts from Woodward’s upcoming book “Rage.”

Appeals court upholds judgment for 4 cities in RFRA lawsuit

| Olivia Covington

A lawsuit challenging Indiana’s controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act will not proceed, for now, after the Indiana Court of Appeals declined to reverse summary judgment for four cities with nondiscrimination ordinances. The appellate panel found that the conservative organizations challenging the RFRA “fix” lacked standing to challenge the ordinances on free speech and religious exercise grounds.

Opinions Sept. 9, 2020

Indiana Court of Appeals
Michael and Mary Poore, Individually and on Behalf of J.P. v. Indianapolis Public Schools and its Board of Education
19A-CT-1439
Civil tort. Affirms in part the Marion Superior Court’s judgment in favor of Indianapolis Public schools and its Board of Education on Michael and Mary Poores’ claims for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act when IPS refused to pay for their child’s advanced math class taken outside of the IPS system. Holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of a certain witness; IPS was not negligent because IPS did not deny J.P. the benefit of early college credits; and no valid, enforceable contract existed between IPS and the Poores requiring IPS to pay for the class. Reverses the conclusion on the DCSA and holds that IPS was not subject to the statutory requirements of the DCSA.