Tax revenues have jumped in all but two of Indiana’s 89 counties. The Indianapolis Star headlines its story, “Increased tax revenues boost ’06 county budgets“

Cash-strapped local governments across the state will get a financial boost next year from their county income taxes worth $177 million, Gov. Mitch Daniels announced Tuesday.

All but two of the 89 counties in the state that have income taxes will see an increase, which amounts statewide to 18.8 percent in additional money.

The reasons for the increase? Hoosiers made more money in 2004, the Department of Revenue processed their tax returns prior to the end of the fiscal year on June 30, and several counties raised their tax rates.

The article goes on to note that Hoosiers earned 7.5 percent more in 2004 than in 2003. Moreover, “the Department of Revenue hustled, with its employees working nights and weekends, to deal with a backlog of 249,000 tax returns.” Finally, nine counties increased their income tax rates. The Evansville Courier & Press reports, “Rise in county tax take a boon for budget planners” and the Journal Gazette contains an article headlined, “Income rise boosts counties’ tax coffers.”

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear four cases on Thursday, following on the heels of an already busy Wednesday that includes five oral arguments. Thursday’s cases are as follows. Delta Airlines v. Cook:

Passengers sued airlines for permitting a passenger who was behaving erratically to board. The Marion Superior Court granted partial summary judgment to the airlines. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part; holding the action was not preempted by federal law and genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on claims for breach of contract and negligent infliction of emotional distress. See Delta Airlines v. Cook, 816 N.E.2d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), clarified on reh’g, 821 N.E.2d 400 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case, thus vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

Robert Cavens, M.D. v. Tim Zaberdac:

In this medical malpractice case, the Lake Superior Court granted Zaberdac’s motion for judgment on the evidence with respect to Dr. Craven’s contributory negligence defense. The jury returned a verdict for Zaberdac. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding Dr. Cavens should have been permitted to present his contributory negligence defense to the jury. Cavens v. Zaberdac, 820 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.

Duthmen Manufacturing, Inc. v. Reynolds:

The Elkhart Superior Court denied Dutchmen Manufacturing’s motion for summary judgment on Reynolds’ claim he was injured by a chattel supplied by Dutchmen. The Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction of this interlocutory appeal, reversed the trial court, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Dutchmen. Dutchmen Mfg., Inc. v. Reynolds, 819 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), reh’g denied, vacated. The Supreme Court has granted transfer and assumed jurisdiction over the case.

Brown v. Brown:

The Madison Superior Court denied Danny Brown’s motion requesting the court to credit against Danny’s child support arrearage a retroactive lump sum payment of social security disability benefits paid to the benefit of the child because of Danny’s disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Brown v. Brown, 823 N.E.2d 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Danny Brown has petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over this case.

Leaders of the Senate and its Judiciary Committee have outlined their timetable for considering the nomnation of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice. As reported by Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog:

Today or tomorrow: President’s formal nomination of Roberts sent to the Senate
Monday, Sept. 12 — Committee hearings open, with opening statements by members and by Judge Roberts
Tuesday, Sept. 13 — Questioning of Roberts begins
Thursday or Friday, Sept. 15 or 16 — Committee hearings expected to conclude
Thursday, Sept. 22 — Target date for vote in Judiciary Committee
Monday, Sept. 26 — Target date for opening of floor debate on the nomination
Thursday or Friday, Sept. 29 or 30 — Target dates for final Senate vote on confirmation.

The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette carries an Associated Press article titled, “Federal judge dismisses suit to stop Illinois base closure“

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s lawsuit aimed at stopping the military from moving fighter jets from Illinois to Indiana.

Judge Jeanne Scott ruled that Illinois had suffered no economic loss or breakdown in security because a federal commission’s recommendation to move 15 F-16s to a base in Fort Wayne, Ind., is not final.

In a statement, Blagojevich said that the “battle to do what is right for Illinois and our country is certainly not over.” But a spokesman said aides had not yet decided on the next step.

The Democratic governor argued that the 183rd Fighter Wing could not be relocated without his permission because it is part of the state militia he controls.

He asked the judge to issue a temporary restraining order to keep the Base Closure and Realignment Commission from sending its report to President Bush. The report is due by Thursday.

Update: The Chicago Tribune contains an article headlined, “Judge tosses suit over fighter jets.”

On Tuesday the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released five new opinions. Hess v. Reg-Ellen Machine, No. 043408p:

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Reg-Ellen Machine Tool Corporation (“Reg-Ellen”) administers an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”) for its employees that is governed by the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq. Plan participants John and James Hess, brothers and former employees of Reg-Ellen, each brought suit in federal district court against Reg-Ellen and the Reg-Ellen ESOP, claiming that the plan administrator had wrongfully denied their requests to move their retirement funds from Reg-Ellen stock into diversified investments. See 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) (authorizing suits by participants in plans covered by ERISA to enforce rights under terms of plan). John Hess also sued to enforce his alleged right under the Illinois Business Corporation Act to inspect Reg-Ellen’s books and records. See 805 ILCS 5/7.75 (requiring corporations to allow shareholders to examine corporate books and records for a proper purpose). On the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Hesses appeal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Johnson v. Cherry, No. 043562p:

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. When a motion was filed on behalf of plaintiff Paula Johnson seeking leave for Johnson’s former attorney, appellant Barbara J. Clinite, to withdraw and for her new counsel to file his appearance, Clinite moved to strike the motion, averring that her signature on the motion had been forged. Following a hearing called to investigate the forgery allegation, the district court found that Clinite had, in fact, signed the motion. Based in part on that finding, the court on its own motion imposed monetary sanctions on Clinite. Clinite appeals, contending that the finding is clearly erroneous. Although we agree with Clinite that the record hints rather strongly that she did not sign the substitution motion, we need not resolve that question. Rather, because the court imposed sanctions on Clinite without first notifying her that it was contemplating that step and giving her an adequate opportunity to respond, we vacate the sanctions order and remand for reconsideration. The court also ordered Clinite to turn over her case file to Johnson’s new counsel, notwithstanding the fact that Johnson has not yet compensated Clinite for her time and expenses nor provided security for that obligation. Clinite contends that in this respect the order disregarded her common-law retaining lien. We direct the court to revisit this issue on remand as well.

Westefer v. Snyder, No. 033318p:

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs, prisoners incarcerated at Tamms Correctional Center (“Tamms”) in Illinois, brought this Section 1983 action against officers and employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections (collectively, (“IDOC”). The prisoners alleged that their transfers to Tamms violated their rights to due process of law and freedom of association and against ex post facto punishment. The district court dismissed these counts for failure to state a claim. Another count, alleging that the transfer constituted retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights, survived this initial scrutiny. The parties then conducted discovery on this remaining count. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to IDOC. The prisoners appeal the decision of the district court with respect to all of these claims. After oral argument, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the administrative process by which an inmate, already incarcerated at Tamms, can challenge his assignment to that facility. After the Supreme Court decided Wilkinson v. Austin, 125 S. Ct. 2384 (2005), the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the applicability of that decision to this case. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to the freedom of association and ex post facto claims. With respect to the retaliation and due process claims, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Burt v. Uchtman, No. 041293p:

COFFEY, Circuit Judge. Ronald Burt was sentenced to death for the murders of H. Steven Roy and Kevin Muto. His sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment when the Governor of Illinois granted clemency to all death row inmates. Burt was tried before a jury, but near the end of the state’s case-in-chief he abruptly changed his plea to guilty without any concessions from the government and against the strenuous advice of his attorneys. During the more than 14 months between his arrest and guilty plea, Burt was taking a number of powerful psychotropic medications prescribed for him by prison doctors. Burt was examined by a psychologist eight months before his trial began, and the doctor, while noting several psychological impairments, deemed him fit to stand trial. The psychologist, however, did not consult Burt’s medication records and his report mentions only in passing that Burt was even on medication. Neither defense counsel nor the trial court ever requested a further evaluation to determine if Burt was competent at the time he pleaded guilty. Burt’s direct appeal, state post-conviction petition, and petition for habeas corpus in the district court, 28 U.S.C. Section 2254, were all unsuccessful. We granted Burt a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) whether he was denied due process when the trial court failed to order a hearing into his fitness to plead guilty, and (2) whether he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed to request a renewed examination of his fitness. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the Illinois Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law on both issues. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Burt’s petition and remand with instructions to grant the writ of habeas corpus unless Illinois informs the district court within a reasonable time to be determined by the district court that it intends to retry Burt.

On Wednesday the Indiana Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments for three cases. Ellenwine v. Fairley:

The Appellants’ child died as a result of alleged medical malpractice more than two years after the alleged malpractice occurred, and the Appellants filed a wrongful death action against the medical provider. The St. Joseph Superior Court granted the medical provider’s motion for summary judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, holding the applicable statute of limitations could not constitutionally be applied to bar the Appellants’ wrongful death action. Ellenwine v. Fairley, 818 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The Appellee has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.

Davidson v. State:

Appellant was charged with the murder of Samuel Creekmore. At the trial of his case, Appellant tendered certain jury instructions, which the trial court rejected. A jury returned a guilty verdict. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Appellant’s conviction, ruling that the trial court committed reversible error by giving jury instructions that relieved the State of its burden of proving an element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Davidson v. State, 825 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case, thus vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

Dorsey Mathews v. State:

In 1995, Dorsey Matthews was convicted in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, of one count of murder, six counts of arson as a Class A felony, and two counts of Arson as a Class B felony and sentenced to 145 years. The trial court granted Matthews leave to file a belated appeal, and the Court of Appeals vacated one arson conviction and affirmed the remaining convictions and sentence. Matthews v. State, — N.E.2d —, No. 49A02-0406-PC-493 (Ind. Ct. App. March 31, 2005). Matthews has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal. For purposes of their preparation, the Court has advised the parties that it is primarily interested in their discussing whether the language of the version of arson statute under which Matthews was convicted should be read to permit conviction on multiple counts of arson when the defendant, by means of a single “fire or explosive,” causes bodily injury or serious bodily injury to multiple victims. The Court has further advised the parties that their arguments should focus on principles of statutory construction and interpretation, cf., Kelly v. State, 539 N.E.2d 25 (Ind. 1989), rather than on principles of double jeopardy.

Today’s Indianapolis Star carries an editorial titled, “Let’s clarify insanity question.”

As the case of Arthur Baird, who was spared the death penalty last week, illustrated, the issue of sanity makes the question of whether to proceed with a convicted killer’s execution extraordinarily complicated.

It’s an issue Indiana lawmakers need to address.

The Indiana Appeals Court has posted its opinion in Joshua Gasper v. State of Indiana.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will not open hearings on Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Jr., on Tuesday, as had been planned. Various news organizations are reporting that Senate leaders have decided to begin the hearings no earlier than Thursday, but no later than Monday, in order to honor Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

The Associated Press files this report and the New York TImes provides this news update. Bloomberg News reports that “Bush Chooses John Roberts as Next U.S. Chief Justice” and Reuters reports that “Bush picks Roberts to succeed Rehnquist.” The White House’s web site has posted online this transcript of this morning’s announcement.