Evansville Sued for Violating Gun Owner's Rights

[sharkey]

View attachment 43589

 

[actaeon277]

I recall TF saying he was buying drinks at the next ingo meet and greet...

I'd like to buy a lunch/dinner for TF and Guy.
They fought the fight, when a lot of people would have said, "Well, what can you do?"

 

[cobber]

Public Access to Records Request to the City Controller for fees paid to their private firm, Ziemer Stayman Weitzel& Shoulders, LLP .

Assuming the local paper will unearth this inconvenient truth.

 

[dudley0]

Congrats on the win gents...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

Transfer denied. So, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

I'd suspect a quick settlement from the City of Evansville, but they've misplayed their hand in this litigation before.

ETA:
Congrats to TF and Guy for fighting the good fight.

Was the "blind squirrel" reference to me or the Supreme Court?

For the TL;DR folks among us (or at least me ), What does this mean?

 

[HoughMade]

Assuming the local paper will unearth this inconvenient truth.

That seems like an odd assumption to make. Why would they?

 

[Rookie]

How soon until we get the whole story?

 

[HoughMade]

So, back to the trial court. Are we looking at a trial now or further dispositive motions?

...and i would fully understand if you chose not to answer.

 

[Alamo]

For the TL;DR folks among us (or at least me ), What does this mean?

Not sure which part you are looking at, but I will take a stab:

Evansville argued to trial court that complainant filed under the wrong section of Indiana Code, that he should have filed under Indiana Tort Claims Act, not under the pre-emption law. (E-ville wants this because the ITCA had a six-month deadline for filing a complaint, and that is long since past. Suit would be thrown out and E-ville wins on technicality).

Trial court denied, allowed Evansville to appeal this issue to Court of Appeals. They lost again.

Their last chance was to appeal (for some reason now called "transfer") to the Supreme Court. T.Lex predicted ISC would deny the transfer. He was right.

The issues remaining to be settled are:
1. Will Evansville join the real world, recognize they will lose in trial due to pre-emption, and stick to arguing about attorney's fees and such, or will they go full retard and challenge the pre-emption in court?
2. Who is the 'blind squirrel'? Suspects are T.Lex, the ISC, and Guy Relford.
3. Who is buying the beer?

 

[Rookie]

Not sure which part you are looking at, but I will take a stab:

Evansville argued to trial court that complainant filed under the wrong section of Indiana Code, that he should have filed under Indiana Tort Claims Act, not under the pre-emption law. (E-ville wants this because the ITCA had a six-month deadline for filing a complaint, and that is long since past. Suit would be thrown out and E-ville wins on technicality).

Trial court denied, allowed Evansville to appeal this issue to Court of Appeals. They lost again.

Their last chance was to appeal (for some reason now called "transfer") to the Supreme Court. T.Lex predicted ISC would deny the transfer. He was right.

The issues remaining to be settled are:
1. Will Evansville join the real world, recognize they will lose in trial due to pre-emption, and stick to arguing about attorney's fees and such, or will they go full retard and challenge the pre-emption in court?
2. Who is the 'blind squirrel'? Suspects are T.Lex, the ISC, and Guy Relford.
3. Who is buying the beer?

For the TL; DR folks...

Who is buying the beer?

 

[GuyRelford]

Evansville argued to trial court that complainant filed under the wrong section of Indiana Code, that he should have filed under Indiana Tort Claims Act, not under the pre-emption law. (E-ville wants this because the ITCA had a six-month deadline for filing a complaint, and that is long since past. Suit would be thrown out and E-ville wins on technicality).

Sorta. Evansville argued that our suit under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act was a "tort" subject to the Indiana Tort Claims Act that governs tort actions against governmental entities. The ITCA has a notice requirement (applicable only to "tort" actions) that requires a claimant to submit a written notice within 180 days of the "loss," explaining the nature of the claim and the amount demanded, as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. If you don't file a "tort claim notice" with the political entity first, your lawsuit is barred.

We argued that an action under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act is not a "tort" and that we were not seeking compensation for a "loss" as defined by the ITCA; therefore, the notice requirement of the ITCA is inapplicable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with us, and the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So now we'll go back to the trial court for some additional pretrial activities and a trial date. (The trial court just set a scheduling conference for January 14.)

Guy

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not sure which part you are looking at, but I will take a stab:

Evansville argued to trial court that complainant filed under the wrong section of Indiana Code, that he should have filed under Indiana Tort Claims Act, not under the pre-emption law. (E-ville wants this because the ITCA had a six-month deadline for filing a complaint, and that is long since past. Suit would be thrown out and E-ville wins on technicality).

Trial court denied, allowed Evansville to appeal this issue to Court of Appeals. They lost again.

Their last chance was to appeal (for some reason now called "transfer") to the Supreme Court. T.Lex predicted ISC would deny the transfer. He was right.

The issues remaining to be settled are:
1. Will Evansville join the real world, recognize they will lose in trial due to pre-emption, and stick to arguing about attorney's fees and such, or will they go full retard and challenge the pre-emption in court?
2. Who is the 'blind squirrel'? Suspects are T.Lex, the ISC, and Guy Relford.
3. Who is buying the beer?

Sorta. Evansville argued that our suit under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act was a "tort" subject to the Indiana Tort Claims Act that governs tort actions against governmental entities. The ITCA has a notice requirement (applicable only to "tort" actions) that requires a claimant to submit a written notice within 180 days of the "loss," explaining the nature of the claim and the amount demanded, as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. If you don't file a "tort claim notice" with the political entity first, your lawsuit is barred.

We argued that an action under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act is not a "tort" and that we were not seeking compensation for a "loss" as defined by the ITCA; therefore, the notice requirement of the ITCA is inapplicable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with us, and the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So now we'll go back to the trial court for some additional pretrial activities and a trial date. (The trial court just set a scheduling conference for January 14.)

Guy

Ahhhh....that makes sense. But there's one thing....Roadie indicated above there'd be beer. What about that?

 

[Caleb]

Ahhhh....that makes sense. But there's one thing....Roadie indicated above there'd be beer. What about that?

...yes....beer!

 

[AndersonIN]

I have a search program set that checks these forums every day for various trigger words with one of them being "beer" and it brought me here!

When and where????

 

[Caleb]

On a serious note, once TF and guy officially wins at the very end....we need a massive meet and greet somewhere that sells beer

 

[atvdave]

I'm also happy to Shoulders as one of the city's Attorney's for E-ville. I've known him since he was a kid, and didn't like him way back then either.

 

[cobber]

That seems like an odd assumption to make. Why would they?

Oh. Taxpayers might be interested in learning the costs of litigating this mess. Why wouldn't the paper investigate? Seems like a simple matter to research, and if I were a voter there I'd be curious.

On the other hand, if E-ville is anything like Lafayette, I'm sure there is a Confederate flag in someone's window that deserves front page coverage.

 

[Alamo]

Sorta. Evansville argued that our suit under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act was a "tort" subject to the Indiana Tort Claims Act that governs tort actions against governmental entities. The ITCA has a notice requirement (applicable only to "tort" actions) that requires a claimant to submit a written notice within 180 days of the "loss," explaining the nature of the claim and the amount demanded, as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. If you don't file a "tort claim notice" with the political entity first, your lawsuit is barred.

We argued that an action under the Indiana Firearms Preemption Act is not a "tort" and that we were not seeking compensation for a "loss" as defined by the ITCA; therefore, the notice requirement of the ITCA is inapplicable. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed with us, and the Indiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case. So now we'll go back to the trial court for some additional pretrial activities and a trial date. (The trial court just set a scheduling conference for January 14.)

Guy

What he said.

 

[AndersonIN]

On a serious note, once TF and guy officially wins at the very end....we need a massive meet and greet somewhere that sells beer

Does the Zoo sell beer?

 

[cosermann]

So, 4 yrs just to get to some other pretrial stuff. Am I understanding correctly?