State v. Hoovler, 79S00-9509-CV-1085
| Decision Date | 06 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 79S00-9509-CV-1085,79S00-9509-CV-1085 |
| Citation | 673 N.E.2d 767 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana and Indiana Department of Revenue, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. Charles HOOVLER, Patricia Ann Palmer, Jeff Symmes, Linda L. Okos, Martin Okos, and Robert M. Stwalley, III, Individually and as Representatives for and on behalf of all other taxpayers similarly situated, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
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.
SULLIVAN, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanson v. Saint Luke's United Methodist Church, 49S02-9804-CV-228
... ... Page 1025 ... based on a state statute authorizing suits against unincorporated associations and judgments against association ... ...
-
WorldCom Network Services, Inc. v. Thompson
...Aug. 1998, at 67. The incivility manifested in the Thompsons' petition and brief corrodes the judicial system. See id. 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 impertin......
-
Hoovler v. State
...for further proceedings. State v. Hoovler, 668 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind.1996), motion to strike portions of reh'g brief granted, 673 N.E.2d 767 (Ind.1997) ("Hoovler I "). The supreme court held that P.L. 44-1994 did not violate Article IV, Section 22 because the statute did not provide for the asse......
-
B & L APPLIANCES & SERVICES, INC. v. McFerran
...been a part of Indiana practice since long before adoption of our present trial rules. See WorldCom, 698 N.E.2d at 1237; State v. Hoovler, 673 N.E.2d 767, 768 (Ind.1997). We thus strike the entire third section of B & L's Petition for Rehearing. Counsel is admonished that such impertinent a......