From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Hoovler

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jan 6, 1997
673 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. 1997)

Summary

striking scandalous or impertinent material has long been part of Indiana practice, citing Guthrie v. Howland, 164 Ind. 214, 73 N.E. 259

Summary of this case from Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sports, Inc.

Opinion

No. 79S00-9509-CV-1085.

January 6, 1997.

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Circuit Court, Cause No. 79C01-9404-CP-125; Honorable Jeffrey R. Smith, Special Judge.

Pamela Carter, Attorney General, Jon Laramore, Chief Counsel, Beth H. Henkel, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, for Appellants (Defendants Below).

Thomas J. Herr, Linda Nearing, Truitt Herr, Lafayette, for Appellees (Plaintiffs Below).

Arthur P. Kalleres, Michael K. Downs, Ice, Miller, Donadio Ryan, Indianapolis, for Amici Curiae City of Lafayette, City of West Lafayette and Tippecanoe County.

Renee R. McDermott, Nashville, for Amicus Curiae Indiana Manufacturers Assoc.


ON REHEARING


The Tippecanoe Circuit Court held that a statute enacted in 1994 principally to permit Tippecanoe County to finance environmental reclamation at its sanitary landfill violated Article IV, Sections 22 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution. This Court reversed, in a decision producing three opinions. State v. Hoovler, 668 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. 1996).

Appellee Hoovler, by his counsel Thomas J. Herr, has petitioned for rehearing. In his brief accompanying the petition, Herr assaults by name the members of the Court who voted to reverse as being in "dereliction of his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution," as "equally culpable," and as assuming power to "repeal" the Constitution. Counsel elaborates on these assaults with liberal use of terms like "absurd" and "fabricated."

The Attorney General has filed a motion to strike portions of the brief in support of the petition for rehearing as impertinent under Indiana Trial Rule 12(F). Her motion is well taken. Striking scandalous or impertinent material has been a part of Indiana practice since long before the adoption of our present trial rules. See, e.g., Guthrie v. Howland, 164 Ind. 214, 73 N.E. 259 (1905).

The Attorney General's motion to strike is granted.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur.

SULLIVAN, J., not participating.


Summaries of

State v. Hoovler

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jan 6, 1997
673 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. 1997)

striking scandalous or impertinent material has long been part of Indiana practice, citing Guthrie v. Howland, 164 Ind. 214, 73 N.E. 259

Summary of this case from Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sports, Inc.

In State v. Hoovler, 673 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. 1997), our supreme court struck portions of a petition for rehearing and supporting brief, noting, "Striking scandalous or impertinent material has been a part of Indiana practice since long before adoption of our present trial rules."

Summary of this case from Worldcom, Inc. v. Thompson
Case details for

State v. Hoovler

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF INDIANA AND INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLANTS (DEFENDANTS…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jan 6, 1997

Citations

673 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. 1997)

Citing Cases

Worldcom, Inc. v. Thompson

Mark Hansen, It Didn't Please the Court, ABA Journal, May 1988, at 20 (quoting Monroe Freedman, professor of…

Michigan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Sports, Inc.

As a scurrilous and intemperate attack on the integrity of the Court of Appeals, this sentence is…