« Courts - More on: Las Vegas judiciary subject of in-depth LA Times examination | Main | Ind. Courts - Full-time pro tem judge appointed in Huntington »

Monday, June 12, 2006

Ind. Decisions - Toll road case oral arguments tomorrow

Presumably the attorneys for the Indiana Finance Authority and the State filed their briefs prior to today's 3 p.m. deadline (schedule here). Appellants reply brief, if any, is due no later than 10:00 a.m. tomorrow, Tue., June 3, 2006.

The arguments before the Supreme Court are set for 1:30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. They may also be viewed, live online, here, and replayed later.

Mitch Harper is reporting in his blog, Fort Wayne Observed, that "Indiana Supreme Court Justice Brent E. Dickson is recusing himself from hearing the appeal of the trial court decision in the lawsuit challenging Major Moves." [Thanks to Gary Welsh for the heads up.]

I took a look at the docket (71 S 00 - 0606 - CV - 00204) and nothing is recorded at this point.

Of interest is that several amicus briefs have been filed, including one by IU Law Prof. James Tanford, who played a major role in the U.S. Supreme Court's interstate wine shipping case. His client is William Stant. [I'm told that he may the Stant who is seeking the Green Party nomination for Secretary of State.]

Other amicus: Indiana Assoc. of Cities and Towns.

The ILB has posted the appellants' brief here, and would like to post the other filings. Please e-mail me if you can help.

Here is the just filed story by AP reporter Mike Smith about the State's brief. A quote:

Under Indiana statute, public lawsuits are defined as challenges to the construction, financing or leasing of public improvements by a municipal corporation. One of the issues in the case is whether the state's finance authority is a municipal corporation.

Scopelitis said it was, noting the finance authority undertakes many of the same tasks cities and towns do, such as issuing bonds for public works projects. The lease, he said, constitutes a "public improvement."

The state said in its brief that the lawsuit's claims have the capacity - regardless of their merit - to scuttle a deal if they simply remain alive on June 30.

"This threat, combined with the nature of the IFA as a municipal corporation, justify treating this case as a public lawsuit," the brief said.

The state said the "Major Moves" plan was not special legislation because it will steer some lease money specifically to the seven toll road counties. It said that argument invites the court to second-guess the General Assembly that the lease could impose unique burdens on those counties because higher tolls might divert more traffic to local roads and drive up local government costs.

The state also that "public debt" should not be an issue because its mention in the state's 1851 constitution referred to debt the state incurred in disastrous infrastructure financing schemes earlier that decade. That was all paid off by 1915, the brief said, and now bonds are issued and debt is managed by quasi public-private agencies such as the Finance Authority, not the state directly.

PERHAPS MORE LATER

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 12, 2006 05:17 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions