Instantly Post Your Case to Attorneys
There's no cost to post your case using LegalMatch. We instantly submit your legal issue to licensed, pre-screened attorneys in your area for review. When interested lawyers respond to your case with an offer of service, we provide you full attorney profiles that include background information, fees, and ratings by other LegalMatch users so you can choose the right lawyer for you. Our system is 100% confidential and you only reveal your identity to an interested attorney when you choose to do so. Learn more about how LegalMatch works.
Indiana is known for its conservative political climate, and it has passed a number of laws in harmony with this ideology. According to recent statistics, most lawyers in the Buckeye State believe that their state judiciary is fair and reasonable.
In 1991, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that helped define the government’s authority to regulate expressive conduct. In Barnes, the Court found that an Indiana Statute requiring erotic dancers to wear at least pasties and g-strings was constitutional. Specifically, the court held that Indiana had authority to regulate the expressive conduct at issue based on its substantial interest in protecting the morals and order of society. The High Court found that while erotic dancing is considered expressive conduct under the First Amendment, it is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions. By requiring dancers to wear pasties and g-strings, the statute did not prevent dancers from conveying their erotic message; and the statute was narrowly tailored to effectuate the government’s interest in preventing public nudity.
In 2008, The U.S. Supreme Court again considered an Indiana law in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In Crawford, the Court upheld Indiana’s Public Law 109-2005, often called the strictest voter identification law in the nation. The Indiana law requires voters to present a government-issued ID, such as a driver’s license or passport, in order to cast their ballot. In its decision, the Court found that Indiana had a neutral and sufficiently strong interest in preventing voter fraud. Indiana’s law has been the source of much controversy, as some claim that laws like it prevent poor and disenfranchised voters from voting, while others claim it is necessary to prevent corruption of the democratic process.
According to a recent Harris Interactive Poll measuring attorneys’ perceptions of their states’ judicial systems, Indiana ranked twelfth in the nation in reasonableness and fairness. If you are searching for a lawyer to help you navigate Indiana’s court system, LegalMatch.com can help. LegalMatch is a free lawyer-matching resource geared towards clients facing a number of legal issues, including divorce, personal injury, and bankruptcy.
The websites below offer additional information about the courts and laws of Indiana:
Let LegalMatch Find Indiana Lawyers for You!
Last Modified: 12-23-2009 01:19 PM PST