#Download the original WordPerfect Document here

FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:            ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

RICHARD A. WAPLES                 DAVID K. HERZOG
Waples & Hangar                     JAMES W. CLARK
Indianapolis, Indiana                     Baker & Daniels
                            Indianapolis, Indiana

________________________________________________________________________

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
_________________________________________________________ 

TOM SMITH, individually and as class                                   )
representative of all others similarly situated,                            )
                                                                            )
    Appellants-Plaintiffs,                                                  )
                                                                            )
        vs.                                                                 )    No. 49A05-9802-CV-59
                                                                            )
THE STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION                                                )
    OF INDIANA,                                                             )
                                                                            )
    Appellee-Defendant.    
                                                
                                                                            )
__________________________________________________________________________

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Anthony J. Metz, Judge
Cause No. 49D01-9704-CT-0606
________________________________________________________________________

February 8, 1999

OPINION ON REHEARING-FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge


    Appellant Tom Smith files a petition for rehearing requesting that the court modify its decision to clarify that Smith is not precluded from adjudicating his claim before the trial court. This court's decision focused in part on Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utilities, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641(Ind. 1995), to demonstrate that some transactions, contractual or quasi- contractual, escape the Administrative Orders and Procedures Act, while others do not. We concluded that Smith's transaction with the Lottery, whatever its nature, came under the AOPA and that he had exhausted all available remedies. Thus, the trial court is free to adjudicate Smith's claim and to determine the nature of the transaction between Smith and the Lottery. Smith's petition for rehearing is granted for the limited purpose of clarifying our original opinion.
    In addition, the Lottery's petition for rehearing is denied without further opinion.
DARDEN, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.

Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network