Randall T. Shepard

This case involved certified questions from a federal district court to the Indiana Supreme Court concerning the scope of Indiana's Blacklisting Statute in a dispute between former employees and their ex-employer, Loparex, after the employer had sued the employees for alleged trade secret misappropriation and breach of noncompetition agreements. The court addressed whether a 1904 precedent barring claims by employees who voluntarily left their jobs remained valid, whether attorney fees could be recovered as compensatory damages, and whether an employer's unsuccessful lawsuit to protect trade secrets or enforce noncompetes could itself support a blacklisting claim. The court held that the earlier precedent is no longer good law due to subsequent constitutional revisions and evolving standards of review, allowing individuals who voluntarily left employment to pursue claims under the statute. It further concluded that attorney fees are not an element of compensatory damages and that an employer's trade secret or noncompete lawsuit does not constitute prohibited blacklisting conduct under the statute's terms.

labor & employment

The case involved a Medicaid-certified intermediate care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities that was decertified after an inspection found unsafe conditions, leading it to operate for nine months without state or federal reimbursement until a receiver was appointed. The facility's trustee sued the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration seeking payment for care provided during that period under theories of quantum meruit and breach of contract. The trial court denied the restitution claim but granted relief on the contract claims, then offset the award by the state's costs for the receiver, resulting in no net recovery for either party. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed this outcome, holding that the state had no contractual or equitable duty to pay the facility's costs after decertification and that the offset for receivership expenses was proper under the applicable statutes, which the court viewed as a clarification rather than a change in the law.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

The case involved whether AOL owed Indiana use tax on promotional CD-ROM packages and printed materials it distributed to state residents, which were assembled by out-of-state vendors and letter shops from raw materials supplied in part by AOL. The Tax Court sided with AOL and held that no taxable retail sale occurred. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the vendors acquired tangible personal property for resale and transferred distinct final products to AOL for consideration, making the transactions retail sales that subjected AOL to use tax when it used the items in Indiana.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether Republican Charlie White, who won the 2010 election for Indiana Secretary of State, could be barred from taking office based on a challenge that he was not registered to vote at his residence by the July 2010 candidate certification deadline. The Indiana Democratic Party petitioned the Indiana Recount Commission, which dismissed the challenge, but the Marion Circuit Court reversed that decision. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the petition did not provide a valid basis to prevent White from assuming office after the election. The core reasoning was that the Indiana Constitution sets the qualifications for the office of Secretary of State, and the statutory requirement that a candidate be registered to vote constitutes an impermissible additional substantive qualification that the General Assembly cannot impose.

elections

The case involved a certified question from federal district court asking whether the Town of Fishers could reorganize into a second-class city under Indiana's Government Modernization Act (Ind. Code art. 36-1.5) by adopting a structure with an at-large city council and a mayor appointed by that council, rather than following the standard election requirements in Ind. Code §§ 36-4-5-2 and 36-4-6-3(i). The Indiana Supreme Court answered yes, holding that the reorganization was permissible. The court reasoned that the Act grants local governments full authority to reorganize, must be liberally construed to achieve its purposes, and controls over inconsistent prior statutes unless the Act itself provides otherwise.

electionsprocedure

The case involved the Indiana Department of State Revenue's audit of Rent-A-Center East, Inc., a rent-to-own retailer, which determined that the company's 2003 Indiana tax return did not fairly represent its in-state income and assessed additional tax liability on the grounds that it should have filed a combined return with two affiliated out-of-state entities that owned intellectual property and provided management services. The Indiana Tax Court granted summary judgment to the taxpayer, holding that the Department had not presented sufficient evidence to justify requiring a combined return. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the proposed assessment itself established a prima facie case of tax liability under Trial Rule 56(C) and that the Tax Court had improperly required the Department to produce additional evidence at the summary judgment stage regarding whether separate returns fairly reflected income or whether a combined return was appropriate. The matter was remanded for the Tax Court to evaluate the summary judgment motions based on all designated evidence.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryprocedure