Legal Opinion

Jeana M. Horner v. Terry R. Curry

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 27, 2019No. Supreme Court Case 18S-PL-333Published

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

  1. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  2. Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  4. City of Arlington v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'nSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 2018

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API