ILNews

Emergency transfers by Supreme Court not common

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What attorneys might consider an emergency legal issue may not draw the same urgency from the Indiana Supreme Court.

In fact, it usually doesn’t.

Emergency transfer requests to the state’s highest court don’t happen often, and when they do, it is rare for the justices to grant a request and decide to intervene and take jurisdiction on an appeal. What the infrequency shows is that most attorneys practicing before Indiana’s appellate courts use the process that’s in place, but only rarely do the highest jurists see a need to sidestep the Court of Appeals to give guidance to the lawyers and judges who must address those legal questions in the trenches.

“If you look at all the appeals, you can see that they’re really all over the board, and it’s hard to ID any single theme that runs through the cases,” said Indianapolis appellate attorney Bryan Babb. “That’s a big deal for them to take a case, because they have to start from scratch.”

The Indiana appellate clerk’s office doesn’t specifically track emergency transfer information and compile it within annual reports for trend watching, but figures show that only three of the 20 emergency requests made in the past two years have been granted under Appellate Rule 56(A). Everything from election law to criminal and worker’s compensation issues have been pitched on urgency, but most haven’t been accepted at that stage.
 

Bryan Babb Babb

Tracking data from years past is difficult without the clerk’s office information showing how many motions have been filed. Information can be found using WestLaw, Lexis, or even the published court decisions themselves if the court specifies that it was a 56(A) matter.

Through the years, appellate attorneys Babb and George Patton with Bose McKinney & Evans have compiled those granted transfers based on legal research, giving appellate practitioners an idea of what the court has accepted on an emergency basis. An updated edition of the Appellate Procedure book last published in 2001 is in the works, and Indianapolis law professor Joel Schumm will be compiling criminal cases that have received transfer. The last pocket part issued with that information is for 2009-2010.

Cases listed in the most recent treatise and data compiled from legal research and appellate dockets show at least 50 cases have been granted emergency transfer going back to 1974, though the list may not be complete.
 

Jon Laramore Laramore

“It used to be par for course that the court granted about one a year,” said attorney Jon Laramore with Baker & Daniels. “It’s not like there’s a policy, but that’s how it worked out, and I’m not sure how that plays out as far as percentages based on the total number of petitions.”

Emergency transfer motions before the court are supposed to show an appeal involves a substantial question of law of great public importance as well as some emergency requiring the court’s speedy determination. Attorneys say that can be a tricky set of criteria open to interpretation, but the Indiana courts nearly 40 years ago defined issues of “public concern” as those related to public safety and well-being.

Reflecting on the cases he’s seen transferred on the emergency basis, Patton said that the number has been pretty steady through the years. He’s had a couple granted and denied, and the likelihood of that happening comes down to the specifics of a case and whether any disagreement exists at the lower courts.

Those appellate practitioners who regularly argue before the state appeals courts say these types of emergency requests should be made sparingly by lawyers in order to get the most benefit out of the court system that’s in place.

Through his decade of practice, Babb has been involved in four emergency transfers, and the court has granted two of those – an annexation case in Hamilton County about four years ago and an asbestos case about eight years ago. He also served as amicus curiae counsel on a sewer district case granted on emergency transfer in 2008.

His most recent emergency transfer request, which was denied, involved child support issues. Justices denied emergency transfer in January in the case of Allan C. Bir v. Cynthia Bir, No. 06A01-1009-DR-449. The appeal, still pending at the Court of Appeals level, calls into question the constitutionality of the stateEmergency-factbox’s new child support guidelines that began in 2010 – revisions that altered the payment scheme for high-income earners and raised the ceiling on what obligations would be paid.

Since the justices had revised the rules, Babb and his fellow attorneys argued that the Court of Appeals is obligated to follow the new guidelines the higher court had set and so it wasn’t in a position to objectively review this appeal.

Both legal teams disputed whether the case rose to the level of “great public importance” required under Rule 56(A), with the mother’s attorneys footnoting in a brief that it applied to only a small number of families statewide and doesn’t impact more common issues such as public education, utilities, voting, or religious freedom. The father’s attorneys contended that the issue was that important because it impacts other pending appeals of high-income earners who need guidance.

In the end, the court decided against taking the case, and it will now be considered by the Court of Appeals. While the intermediate appellate court is efficient and speedy compared to other states, Babb said the process can still take more than a year before it even ends up at the transfer stage again.

“There’s no guarantee the (Supreme) court would do anything differently, but you just know that there’s nowhere to go after that,” he said, noting that a federal suit might be possible if U.S. law is involved. “It’s a certainty that’s provided in knowing that Indiana’s court of last resort has looked at the case and issue, and that’s the end.”

The court recently took the case of State v. FreeEats.com, Inc., No. 07A01-1007-MI-323, which involved “robo-calls” and some political free speech issues. Justices heard arguments in January, and that case has the potential to impact how residents receive those types of calls, especially during political seasons.

Generally, election law issues are cases that the court looks favorably on as a possible emergency transfer, attorneys say. But just because it’s an election law issue doesn’t mean the court will take it. Justices last year twice denied an election-specific appeal prior to the November general election, ultimately allowing a Lake County judicial candidate to remain on the ballot despite a challenge to his eligibility. The issue involved William I. Fine’s candidacy for the Lake Circuit bench, after the Indiana Election Commission in September struck him from the ballot and a Marion Superior judge later reinstated his name for voters to choose. Challenger Michael Lambert objected to how the county Republican Party chair had chosen Fine for the vacancy by vote rather than holding a caucus, and he tried to have Fine removed. But the Supreme Court denied two Rule 56(A) motions in September, and the lower appellate court declined to fast track the case prior to the election, which Fine lost. That appeal remains pending and hasn’t progressed since late last year, according to the appellate docket.

Babb sees the court’s denial as part of the larger trend.

“We generally want to use the benefit of the Court of Appeals process setup in this state, and the fact that we have so few of these emergency transfers is a sign of how thorough our law is interpreted in Indiana and what kind of guidance attorneys and trial judges are getting,” he said. “You’re going to get more crystallized, distilled issues as we move up the appeals process, from the three-judge panel to a court one-third that size, and that just means more eyes are looking at it for the most comprehensive result.”•
 

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT