ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

FOUNDATIONS OF EAST CHICAGO, INC. CITY OF EAST CHICAGO

Peter J. Rusthoven James A. Knauer

Mark J. Crandley William Bock, III

Deborah Pollack-Milgate Steven E. Runyan

Paul L. Jefferson Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana

STATE OF INDIANA

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE Gregory F. Zoeller

SAINT STANISLAUS CHURCH AND SCHOOL, Attorney General of Indiana

THE TWIN CITY MINISTERIAL ALLIANCE, AND

THE NORTHWEST INDIANA FEDERATION, Thomas M. Fisher 

F/K/A INTERFAITH FEDERATION Solicitor General of Indiana

Kathleen A. DeLaney

Amanda Couture Heather L. Hagan

Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

NEIGHBORS INCORPORATED OF HAMMOND,

INDIANA, ST. CATHERINE HOSPITAL, INC.,

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.,

CALUMET COLLEGE OF ST. JOSEPH, INC.,

JANELLE SCOTT, AND

THE HON. WILLIAM H. HUDNUT

Stephen J. Peters

David I. Rubin

Indianapolis, Indiana

In the

Indiana Supreme Court 

No. 49S02-0908-CV-00383

FOUNDATIONS OF EAST CHICAGO, INC.,

SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO EAST CHICAGO 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,

INC. AND TWIN CITY EDUCATION 

FOUNDATION, INC.,

Appellant (Plaintiff below),

v.

CITY OF EAST CHICAGO,

Appellee (Defendant below),

and
2

STATE OF INDIANA,

Appellee (Intervenor-Defendant 

below). 

Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D13-0705-PL-019348

The Honorable S.K. Reid, Judge

On Petition for Rehearing

September 16, 2010

Shepard, Chief Justice.

The present appeal concerns the constitutionality of a 2007 amendment to Indiana’s 

gaming law that the City of East Chicago has contended authorizes it to redirect to itself, 

unilaterally, certain revenue from the riverboat gaming licensee operating in East Chicago 

dedicated in support of economic development.

We earlier declined to address the constitutionality of that amendment after concluding 

that there was a nonconstitutional basis for resolving the instant dispute. We rejected the 

arguments advanced by appellant Foundations of East Chicago that the amendment impaired its 

contract rights. We held instead that the amendment merely recognized what had been true 

before its adoption: that at least within certain bounds the City was free to change its mind about 

the local development agreement it had consummated with the original license applicant, but that 

the flow of funds in support of local economic development was governed by the license issued 

by the Indiana Gaming Commission and that alteration of this distribution was within the 

authority, judgment, and supervision of the Commission. Foundations of East Chicago v. City of 

East Chicago, 927 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. 2010).
3

By way of petition for rehearing, Foundations reports that even before our decision had 

been certified the City moved the trial court to terminate the escrow account into which the 

licenseholder’s economic development contributions have been deposited and return the balance 

in the account to the City of East Chicago. (Foundations Add. Ex. A.) This motion was, of 

course, premature under the appellate rules. Ind. Appellate Rule 65(E) (“[P]arties shall not take 

any action in reliance upon the opinion or memorandum decision [by a court on appeal] until the 

memorandum or decision is certified.”). The trial court rightly denied the City’s request on that 

ground alone.

Even if timely, however, the request that the trial court order the economic development 

funds redirected to the City on the basis of its ordinance and the 2007 amendment fell within the 

core of our decision in this case, and that decision was adverse to the City’s position that it 

possessed unilateral authority to redirect the funds. Thus, the City’s motion for an order 

directing that the escrowed funds be transferred to the City should be denied on its merits if 

timely filed.

We grant rehearing for purposes of this clarification of our mandate, and otherwise leave 

intact our original opinion.

Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.