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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT