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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT