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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.