A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE S

F OUNDATIONS OF E AST C HICAGO , I NC

. C ITY OF E AST C HICAGO Peter J. Rusthoven James A. Knauer Mark J. Crandley William Bock, III Deborah Pollack

- Milgate Steven E. Runyan Paul L. Jefferson Indianapolis, Indiana In dianapolis, Indiana S TATE OF I NDIANA A TTORNEYS FOR A MIC I C URIAE Gregory F. Zoeller S AINT S TANISLAUS C HURCH AND S CHOOL , Attorney General of Indiana T HE T WIN C ITY M INISTERIAL A LLIANCE , AND T HE N ORTHWEST I NDIANA F EDERATION , Thomas M. Fisher
F / K / A I NTERFA ITH F EDERATION Solicitor General of Indiana Kathleen A. DeLaney Amanda Couture Heather L. Hagan Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana N EIGHBORS I NCORPORATED OF H AMMOND , I NDIANA , S T

. C ATHERINE H OSPITAL , I NC ., W ORKFORCE D EV ELOPMENT S ERVICES , I NC ., C ALUMET C OLLEGE OF S T

. J OSEPH , I NC ., J ANELLE S COTT , AND T HE H ON

. W ILLIAM H. H UDNUT Stephen J. Peters David I. Rubin Indianapolis, Indiana



# In the



# Indiana Supreme Court

No. 49S02

- 0908

- CV

- 00383

F OUNDATIONS OF 

### E AST 

### C HICAGO 

### , I NC 

### ., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO 

### E AST 

### C HICAGO 

### C OMMUNITY 

### D EVELOPMENT 

### F OUNDATION 

### , I NC



### . AND 

### T WIN 

### C ITY 

### E DUCATION 

### F OUNDATION 

### , I NC 

### ., Appellant (Plaintiff below),

v.

C ITY OF 

### E AST 

### C HICAGO 

### , Appellee (Defendant below)
,
and

### 2

S TATE OF 

### I NDIANA 

### , 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

S hepard , 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 E ast 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 t he
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 m oved 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

co urse, 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 rightl y 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 decis ion 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.