Appeals court expansion bill stays alive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that would create a new sixth panel for the Indiana Court of Appeals is moving through the legislative committee cycle, even though lawmakers doubt it will pass this session.

The Senate Judiciary Committee met this morning and discussed Senate Bill 35, which proposes an additional appellate judge panel for the first time since 1991. The legislation would create a sixth district for the appellate court, boosting the number of judges from 15 to 18 starting in January 2010. Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville, sponsored the bill drafted by the interim legislative Commission on Courts, which supports the measure. The price tag comes at more than $1.3 in its first year and $2.2 million following that, according to a fiscal impact statement.

The notion of expanding the state's second highest appellate court has been discussed for years and been before lawmakers many times in the recent years. Chief Judge John Baker told committee members that an emergency need for the additional panel doesn't exist at the moment, but an ever-increasing caseload means that judges are able to spend less time on each case and eventually the need will become a reality.

"You need to decide whether you want us to spend more time on each case or not," he told committee members.

Chief Judge Baker told lawmakers the court handled nearly 3,000 cases last year, achieved a clearance rate of 100 percent, and currently maintains an average turnaround time for decisions came within about 1½ months. He's proud that the Indiana Court of Appeals can boast being the most efficient court of its kind in the country.

More resources would allow the court to continue its outreach efforts and give judges more time for each case, the chief judge said.

But the bill's sponsor - who chairs the Judiciary Committee as well as the Commission on Courts - pointed out that the General Assembly may not support the measure because of the tough economic times and the difficult budget-balancing job it's facing.

"This has been around awhile and we want to keep it alive, but I'm not optimistic," Bray said, echoing some concerns from other members who raised questions about the timing given the economic state of affairs.

But "in the spirit of longevity," committee members voted unanimously to forward the bill on to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration.

Committee members also forwarded on several other pieces of legislation, including Senate Bill 121 to increase the automated record keeping fee from $7 to $10 to pay for statewide implementation of a case management system; Senate Bill 77 that gives Allen Circuit Court a second magistrate in exchange for a hearing officer spot; Senate Bill 43 revising probate code study commission terms; and Senate Bill 122 that addresses several court issues such as private judges and court alcohol and drug service programs.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.