Fort Wayne Observed has learned 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.
Justice Dickson is widely considered a scholar and expert on the history of the Indiana State Constitution.
The Appellant's brief was filed last Thursday. The State's brief was to have been filed by 3 P.M. this afternoon. Oral argument is set for tomorrow (Tuesday, June 13th) before the Court.
MORE: Indiana Law Blog picked up on FWOb's exclusive regarding the recusal. A reader of that site suggests the important effect the recusal may have on the outcome:
A reader (and experienced appellate attorney) sends this note re the reports of Justice Dickson's recusal:
Interesting. Although there may be some debate on the outcome, ask yourself what happens if there's a 2-2 split. If it's deemed "direct review" by the Supreme Court under Rule 59(B), the trial court judgment shall be affirmed. Accordingly, the constitutionality of Major Moves could be decided on by a single trial court judge without any controlling appellate decision.
The only way you could guarantee an actual controlling appellate case would be if the Court of Appeals (the entity to which the Appellants filed their appeal) heard it first. Then, if the Appellants won in the Court of Appeals 3-0 or 2-1 and the Supreme Court was evenly divided, under Rule 58(C), the Court of Appeals' previously-vacated (on transfer) opinion would be reinstated. Also, the the State and IFA won in the Court of Appeals and there was an equally-divided court, they would win. Either way, you would be guaranteed that someone other than the trial court would have to rule on this legislation.
[More] And sure enough - it turns out the Appellants filed a motion earlier today to remand the matter to the Court of Appeals to ensure there is controlling appellate decision reached.
Unfortunately I can't quote from the Motion to Vacate Transfer because it is scanned, but turn to page 2. Also note page 6.
Any information on why he made this decision?
Posted by: Indiana Pundit | June 12, 2006 at 05:21 PM