My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 02-17-78
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
RM 02-17-78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 5:07:00 PM
Creation date
9/24/2012 2:20:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Redevelopment Commission Meeting <br />Friday, February 17, 1978 <br />MUSSIONS: <br />Mr. Chapleau: No. There is a provision in the Appelate rule that states <br />you can request the Supreme Court to bypass the Court of Appeals and <br />grant a petition to assume jurisdiction of the case, and allow you a <br />speedy hearing. In order to do that you have to show them that this is <br />an 'Important matter. I think that we.can do just that. <br />Ms.lJeanne Derbeck That is if you go to the Supreme Court? <br />Mr. Chapleau: That is right. I am not sure of our strategy, but I think <br />that from our standpoint, we would be better off going to the Supreme <br />Court, because if we stayed at the Court of Appeals level, they would still <br />go to the Supreme Court anyway, so you may as well go to the top <br />immediately, so that you don't have any further delays. <br />Mr. Wiggins: This gets back to the question of their winning by default, <br />by <br />Mr. Chapleau: That is right. I can tell you what their theory is... <br />their theory is that they want to go through each court so it takes longer <br />to have this project heard, with the stay in effect during all the process. <br />Then, they have two shots at the appeal, rather than one, if they go to <br />the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court. If we can bypass the Court <br />of ppeals, then they only have one shot, and they want the two shots, and <br />thet want the delay. <br />Ms. Derbeck: However, what I was referring to is that when I talked to <br />Tim thy Woods, he said the next step is to ask for the transcript, which <br />can take 90 days to file it in Indianapolis, or 60 days, I am not certain <br />of the amount of days. <br />Mr. Chapleau: This is not true. He has to file what they call "Praecipe <br />for Transcript" within 30 days. <br />Ms. Derbeck: What will occur after that? <br />Mr. Chapleau: After that he has 60 days to file the transcript. <br />Ms. Derbeck: To understand what you just said I am to understand that <br />Mr. Woods has so many days to file a brief, approximately 30 days to file <br />a b ief, then I would assume you would want to see his brief before you file <br />you brief. At this time he will have 15 or 20 days to file the answering <br />bri f to yours. Anyway, all of these steps add up to half a year. Except <br />for your brief, he is the one who is going to control how long it takes? <br />Mr. Chapleau: This is true normally; but the point I am making is that the <br />Sup eme Court of Indiana can cut all of those time periods down; they have <br />the power to do so. <br />-9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.