Earlham update
Some aspects of the justice system offer endless amounts of consternation. Much frustration comes from the great amount of time the system takes from the original presentation of an issue to the final resolution. A client comes into the office and states that they have been harmed and want to be made whole. They want a remedy and they want it now. Their attorney will have to tell them that in most circumstances, litigation can take several months if not several years to reach a conclusion: Entering into litigation is not an emotional issue, it is practical.
If both sides of the case have the interests (and the money), the case can stretch from the trial court, to the court of appeals, to the state supreme court, and maybe beyond, with each step taking several months to complete. Reading reports of United States Supreme Court, you quickly discover that the issues at hand often occurred 4 or 5 years earlier.
There are exceptions, and a recent development in the Conner Prairie-Earlham College dispute ( Which I have covered before: see this link) reflects one of them. Often, the case in the trial court is premised on an initial legal determination that will structure the entire course of proceedings at that level. On appeal, if the appellate court finds that initial legal determination to be in error, the entire process at the trial court level, from discovery, through trial, will have been effectively wasted, and the parties may very well have to start the process over again.
There is a process, called an interlocutory appeal, whereby a party can present this initial legal determination to the court of appeals immediately. This is what the judge in the Earlham case has decided to permit:
“Earlham believes that the resolution of the key legal questions will either shorten or eliminate any need for further proceedings in the trial court with respect to the three stock gifts,” Earlham spokesman Lou Gerig said Monday.
Earlham and its attorneys contend the gifts of Eli Lilly and Co. stock worth an estimated $150 million were intended not only to fund Conner Prairie operations but also to benefit the college. They regard the gifts as restricted endowments that require no public accounting and no guarantee of exclusive use by Conner Prairie.
Link, from the Indianapolis Star.
Coverage from the local paper can be found here.
