ILNews

Appeals on Wheels continues to enjoy the open road

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals will hit a milestone this week when it convenes at Trine University in Angola.

The court’s traveling program, dubbed Appeals on Wheels, will conduct its 400th oral argument June 19 before an audience of high school juniors attending Hoosier Boys State. Judges John Baker, Melissa May and Cale Bradford will constitute the panel hearing Dodson v. Seven Corners, Inc., a civil case on appeal from Marion Superior Court.

Launched during the Court of Appeals’ centennial in 2000-2001, Appeals on Wheels has traveled across Indiana to high schools, colleges, law schools and other venues to give state residents a close-up look at the court in action.

“The entire court can be proud of this milestone,” said Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik. “We appreciate the tremendous interest of audiences across the state and the excellent advocacy of so many attorneys who’ve participated through the years.”

Appeals on Wheels is not a moot court program. All the arguments involve pending civil or criminal appeals from Indiana trial courts. Individuals who attend receive a study guide about the Court of Appeals and the case along with copies of the case briefs, if requested. The court also provides a preparation checklist to the host site, sends a news release to area media and notifies the host site after the opinion is issued.

“Traveling oral arguments are just as focused on the case and the law as the rest of our caseload,” Vaidik said. “But they involve an added dimension of public outreach and education that benefits the court, the law and our audiences.”

 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT