Indiana Attorney General Stubs Toe While Enforcing Civil Investigative Demands

Who needs evidence? On Tuesday, The Indiana Lawyer published Court: Evidence needed to enforce CID. You will have to take a look at my post, See Litigation: Indiana Jurisdiction Over Out of State Companies, to get the full scope of the interest here. The Attorney General seems to have problems with its civil investigative demand (CID) but I am relying on the Indiana Lawyer on this one:

The Indiana Attorney General must provide at least a verified petition to a court to enforce a civil investigative demand and show the demand is proper, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.

In Nu-Sash of Indianapolis, Inc. d/b/a McKee Sunroom Designs v. Steve Carter, Indiana Attorney General, and Liberty Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Booster Club Productions , No. 49S02-0801-CV-16, Nu-Sash appealed a trial court order that the company respond within 10 days to a civil investigative demand (CID) issued by Attorney General Steve Carter regarding consumer complaints. At the hearing on the petition, the attorney general did not present any evidence to show why the demand is proper under Indiana Code Sections 4-6-3-1 through 6. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court didn't abuse its discretion because the attorney general met the statutory requirements for issuing a CID.