Jeana M. Horner v. Terry R. Curry
Indiana Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRush, C.J.
I take no issue with my colleagues' conclusion that the plaintiffs have standing as taxpayers, or with their analysis that Article 8, Section 2 applies to civil forfeitures.
I disagree with my colleagues, however, on two fronts. First, their broader discussion of the public-standing doctrine-properly characterized as dicta-is imprudent. It undercuts an important, long-recognized instrument for maintaining the separation of powers and checks and balances in Indiana, and it mistreats this Court's precedent. Second, I disagree that the current civil-forfeiture statute is constitutional. If the…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment.
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
- City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 2018
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.