ILNews

Construction changes after-hours appeal filings

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Anyone making after-hours filings in Indiana's appeals courts will notice a change in procedure this week.

It's back to the old way, or at least one that closely resembled how the process worked before security measures altered that system earlier this year.

Construction started Monday on the east doors of the Indiana Statehouse, which is where the legal community has been allowed to enter after hours for "Rotunda filing" of court documents for the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court. Since June, the second-floor vestibule area has had a drop box to leave the documents, which are often submitted there to meet time-sensitive deadlines.

However, no plan was made to maintain this access by late last week, and the appellate clerk's office has been working to make alternative rotunda filing arrangements, according to Kevin Smith, the Supreme Court Administrator and Appellate Courts Clerk.

Smith said he knows of one attorney who called his office today about her runner not being able to Rotunda file last night, but she was able to put those into a U.S. Postal Service box before midnight and they were still timely. That's always an alternative to rotunda filing, Smith pointed out.

Construction is expected to last at least through the year's end, and in the meantime the legal community can go back to how Rotunda filing used to function, Smith said. Materials can be left with a Capitol Police officer stationed at a desk just inside the north entrance of the Statehouse, which abuts the rear parking lot. However, this door requires a swipe card to enter so those wishing to file between 5 p.m. and midnight will need to knock for that officer to let them inside.

If the officer is temporarily away from the desk, that person will need to wait until the officer returns, according to Smith. Forms will be available at the desk to complete, and the officer will write the time and date on the form rather than having it stamped by a clock. The person filing will still need to attach the form's top copy to the inside cover of the original document being filed, but that bundle will then be left with the officer.
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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT