Evan C. Zoldan[i]
When the Court of Appeals of Indiana decided an important case about gun liability in May 2019, it got a key legal point wrong. The case, City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson,[ii]arose out of a lawsuit filed by the City of Gary, Indiana (the “City”), against Smith & Wesson and other firearms manufacturers. The City asked the court to hold the manufacturers liable for creating a public nuisance and for the negligent design, distribution, and marketing of firearms. After the City’s lawsuit was filed, the Indiana legislature passed a statute granting immunity to gun manufacturers for these types of claims. Because the lawsuit predated the statute, however, it was not clear whether the statute would affect the pending lawsuit.
Administrative agencies regulate a wide breadth of issues—including driver’s licenses, alcoholic beverage permits, placement of utility poles, administration of the state’s Medicaid program, and complaints by prisoners—to name just a few examples discussed in this Article. These agencies form a bridge between Indiana’s citizens and their government.
During recent decades, the teaching and discussion of Evidence law have come to focus almost entirely on the topics covered by the Federal Rules of Evidence and their state equivalents. Just as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure caused teachers and scholars to focus on what they cover, the Federal Rules of Evidence have come to define our understanding of what Evidence law is about.
Any new practice involving communication can pose a challenge to established free speech law. A few such practices are of exceptional value in promoting a clearer understanding of free speech law and, crucially, of the increasingly important deficiencies of even our best free speech theories. The practice of projecting light messages onto targeted property is just such a practice.
Like the Muses, the Justices of the Supreme Court are nine in number. Like the Muses, the justices can tell false things as well as true ones. In the messy area of government-religious speech, the Supreme Court’s opinions sometimes contain facts that seem plausible but are false.
Administrative agencies—performing quasi-judicial, legislative, and executive functions—serve as a direct link between Indiana’s citizens and their government. Because of this connection, agencies present the courts with a range of legal problems touching all corners of Indiana’s legal landscape and affecting wide-ranging interests.
by Tess Anglin, 2L Note Candidate Michael DeBoer’s article Justice Brent E. Dickson, State Constitutional Interpretation, and the […]