Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[T.Lex]

The prosecution tried to use INGO posts against Liberty Sanders in Carmel, IIRC.


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-defense/114140-bad-experience-carmel-pd.html

ROFL

There's a circularity in the Matrix.

Thanks for the clarification - I didn't put that together.

 

[T.Lex]

Kirk,

Thanks for the reply. I'm a legal dumb ass. Can you make it easy for me to understand what that means?

TYIA

"Interlocutory" basically means that it is on an issue that the parties and the court want resolved before actually getting to trial. There are various reasons it is a good idea, but usually there has been no evidence presented yet, nor any final decision.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Thanks for the edumacation!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It is public record if you know how to find it, I think T.Lex posted about it in another thread but basically this appeal was about a technicality in the filing of the lawsuit itself, not any of the real issues which will be taken to trial if we get past this appeal.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Quick vid of the appeal from the city attorney and then our own Guy Relford.

Appeals court hears Evansville gun case - Courier Press

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Another one. Court Hears Case Involving Armed Man in Local Zoo - Tristatehomepage - Eyewitness News

 

[AA&E]

The prosecution tried to use INGO posts against Liberty Sanders in Carmel, IIRC.


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-defense/114140-bad-experience-carmel-pd.html

Without reading 92 pages of posts, could you tell me how that incident turned out?

 

[Butch627]

Without reading 92 pages of posts, could you tell me how that incident turned out?

If you read the last page of that thread, or post a question in that thread regarding it im sure you will find your answer.

 

[AA&E]

If you read the last page of that thread, or post a question in that thread regarding it im sure you will find your answer.

Not so much.. I made it 11 pages back and still didn't find his post regarding the real outcome of the case. From comments I can tell he walked, but nothing really detailed. This post sparked some fire in my mind though...


https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-bad-experience-carmel-pd-78.html#post1778108


EDIT:

Found it on page 53 of the post..

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...-bad-experience-carmel-pd-57.html#post1771642

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually post 563 page 57.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

3-0 for the good guys. Indiana Court of Appeals decision today: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06241502jgb.pdf

 

[SEIndSAM]

3-0 for the good guys. Indiana Court of Appeals decision today: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06241502jgb.pdf

So, in summary the City of Evansville did screw up and the courts now agree.... So, what's next???

 

[Woobie]

3-0 for the good guys. Indiana Court of Appeals decision today: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06241502jgb.pdf

Good deal.

I'm ignorant of the process. What happens next?

 

[T.Lex]

Awesome.

Next steps? The city will probably seek review by the Indiana Supreme Court. That process is known as seeking "transfer." In this kind of case, the ISC does not have to review it. Generally, civil cases have a low percentage of transfers. This, however, is a unique case, so it is hard to tell whether they will take it or not.

It'll take roughly 60 days for the parties to request/respond to transfer. After that, it will be up to the ISC to decide whether to take it, which could take weeks or months.

ETA:
Solid, solid win. Decent analysis by Baker, too, although I'm a bit surprised May and Barteau didn't offer any dissent or concurrence in result. After reading it, I actually doubt ISC will take transfer. Would rather see how it plays out.

 

[SirRealism]

Two questions:

If the ISC were to take the transfer, would it only be on the refusal to grant a judgment regarding the failure to follow ITCA notice rules?

At this point, assuming the ISC doesn't take xfer, does it now go back to the trial court?

 

[T.Lex]

If the ISC were to take the transfer, would it only be on the refusal to grant a judgment regarding the failure to follow ITCA notice rules?

There are actually 2 answers: the technical one and the practical.

Technically, the ISC can look at the entire case up to that point. The App. Ct. mentioned a couple other issues, too, and the ISC can follow up on those, or any other issue that it sees.

Practically, the ITCA compliance is the only issue - whether they had to comply or not (or the subsidiary question, whether E-ville waived it by not raising it in their answer).

At this point, assuming the ISC doesn't take xfer, does it now go back to the trial court?

Yes. This issue was raised very early in the litigation, so there is still much for the trial court to do.

However, by getting passed the motion to dismiss stage, and seeing the general framework the App. Ct. set up in distinguishing this from Dykstra, E-ville has got to be thinking about saving money. There has already been a metric-blank-ton of legal work, and they've only paid for half - their own attorneys. The more this drags out, the bigger the bill from the Relfords will be.

So, to borrow KF's risk formula, it isn't the odds, its the stakes. The more they fight it, the bigger the monetary stakes become.

 

[rhino]

When this is final "over," the insult to injury will be that the taxpayers will bear the burden of the penalties and costs associated with this matter, all because agents of the government were either ignorant of the law, or chose to disregard the law. ARGH.

 

[KLB]

When this is final "over," the insult to injury will be that the taxpayers will bear the burden of the penalties and costs associated with this matter, all because agents of the government were either ignorant of the law, or chose to disregard the law. ARGH.

And doubled down fighting it in court.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

 

[rhino]

And doubled down fighting it in court.

Oh, yeah!

I suspect it's easier to pull that kind of douche move when you're spending someone else's money.

You deserve that, sir! DO NOT QUIT!