recognizing that the constitutional problem is that the statutes “allows debtors to shield an unlimited amount of assets in a life insurance policy or policies”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that the constitutional problem is that the statutes “allows debtors to shield an unlimited amount of assets in a life insurance policy or policies”
- recognizing that a facial challenge “demands a sweeping pronouncement of the [legislative enactment’s] constitutionality regardless of the factual setting”
- noting that a facial challenge “demands a sweeping pronouncement of the statute[’s] constitutionality regardless of the factual setting”
- "'[Clourts will not pass upon a constitutional question, and decide a statute to be invalid, unless a decision upon that very point becomes necessary to the determination of the cause. This court has repeatedly held that questions of this character will not be decided unless such decision is absolutely necessary to a disposition of the cause on its merits.""
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by a later decision, 465 F.3d 309 (2006)
Accordingly, we reject Stinnett's attempt to relegate Foster to cases involving allegations of asset manipulation by the debtor.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring.
Although I dissented in Matter of Zumbrun, 626 N.E.2d 452, 456 (Ind.1993) (Sullivan, J., dissenting), I consider the interpretation of Article I, § 22, of the Indiana Constitution stare decisis for purposes of this opinion and for that reason concur.