ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT