ILNews

Justices' transfer action posted online weekly

Michael W. Hoskins
May 24, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In order to increase efficiency and reduce administrative redundancies at the appellate clerk's office, attorneys and law firms will no longer receive weekly e-mails about cases the Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to consider.

Indiana Appellate Clerk and Supreme Court Administrator Kevin S. Smith sent an e-mail Friday that alerted members of the public and legal community about the change. The clerk's office for several years had been sending weekly updates about the state justices' transfers granted during their private weekly conferences.

Those weekly updates known as the "Clerk's Transfer Action Report" will be replaced with full online lists about the appeal transfers and denials by the Indiana Supreme Court. The transfer disposition information is already being posted on the state judiciary's website at www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions, and will also be publicly released in Twitter updates by the state's highest court.

"Because the Clerk's Transfer Action Report contains the same information that our staff is separately typing up in these "Transfer Granted" emails, it makes little sense, administratively, for us to continue separately producing and transmitting the "Transfer Granted" e-mails as well, especially when the resources we devote to this effort are greatly needed elsewhere," Smith wrote in the e-mail.

Smith also pointed out that his office is creating this report in a Microsoft Excel document, allowing viewers to sort and filter the data on whatever cases they might want to see.

Traditionally, those transfer granted e-mails from a clerk's office staff member have gone out as soon as Thursday on the day of the justices' conferences, but usually are received by Monday the following week. Smith said the online reports will be posted in a timely manner and depend on various factors such as staffing availability, the number of transfer orders issued by the Supreme Court, and other court orders and activity that may be happening simultaneously with the three state appellate courts.

With the most recent conference activity from last week, the clerk's office posted the online report today about the 14 cases considered on Thursday. Justices didn't grant any transfers. But the denial in Cory A. McClarin v. State of Indiana, No. 20A05-0909-CR-553, in which all the justices concurred, there is an interesting and uncommon note regarding Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard's thought on the case ruled on by the Court of Appeals in March.

The denial note says the chief justice "joins in denying the Petition to Transfer, believing that the trial court has correctly been affirmed, but compliments to attorney Donald Shuler on the very high quality of the brief he filed on his client's behalf."

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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT