ILNews

IndyBar Board Approves Rule Change Proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors approved a proposed rule amendment generated by the bar’s Appellate Practice Section at its Dec. 4 meeting. The rule amendment, which has since been submitted to the Rules Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court, amends Rule 65 of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, shortening the deadline to file a motion to publish in the Court of Appeals to 15 days and permitting the citation of Not-for-Publication (NFP) opinions as persuasive precedent. The proposal specifies that only NFP opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2015 be permitted to be cited.

The proposal originated in the Appellate Practice section but was also approved by the executive committees of the Criminal Justice Section and the Litigation Section earlier in 2013. The section members of all three sections were also surveyed to gauge opinions on possible changes, with 79 percent of respondents in favor of an amendment to the rule.

The documentation provided to the Rules Committee details the anticipated impact of the proposed amendment:

Deadlines for Motions to Publish Under Appellate Rule 65(B): Shortening the deadline to file a motion to publish from 30 to 15 days would codify the unwritten policy and preference of many judges on the Court of Appeals. Because a petition to transfer must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of an NFP Court of Appeals’ opinion, a shorter deadline will provide notice to all parties that an NFP decision may be published, which may affect some parties’ decision whether to seek transfer.

Allowing Citation of NFP Decisions: Rule 65(D) presently prohibits citations of or reliance on NFP opinions except for the very narrow purposes of establishing res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case. Thus, in trial courts across the state and on appeal, lawyers who find a NFP opinion with similar facts or helpful reasoning may not cite the opinion, even though they are permitted to cite any case decided by a court in another jurisdiction. The proposed rule would remedy this anomaly by permitting citation of NFP Indiana opinions as persuasive precedent while making clear that no party is under an obligation to cite any NFP opinion. The very modest change is warranted by modern technology and enjoys strong support of a broad section of the bar.

The proposed rule would maintain two classes of opinions. Published opinions would remain precedential and important to find and follow. NFP opinions would remain less significant—but would assume some significance. In cases where the published authority does not provide a complete answer, lawyers would be permitted to rely on NFP opinions as persuasive authority only.

This approach would be consistent with federal practice and the practice in a growing number of states. More importantly, it would allow counsel another way to advance and support their arguments, which is especially important in some areas of civil law in which there are relatively few published Indiana cases. Finally, by permitting citation to only NFP opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2015, the proposed rule will alleviate the burden on counsel to search through older NFP opinions.

To view additional information about the proposed rule amendment, visit indybar.org.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT