ILNews

IndyBar: A Proposal to Allow Citations of All Indiana Appellate Opinions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-citations.jpgAppellate Rule 65 currently prohibits lawyers from citing or relying on the nearly 75 percent of Indiana Court of Appeals’ opinions issued as memorandum (not-for-publication) decisions. These opinions, however, are easily accessible on Lexis, Westlaw, and CaseMaker—and often provide helpful analysis when considering an issue.

The Rules Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court has proposed changing this rule to allow citation of memorandum (non-for-publication) decisions as persuasive precedent. The proposed rule makes clear: “A party or attorney has no duty to cite a memorandum decision.” The new rule would not create additional work for lawyers. In many cases, lawyers will find and continue to rely on ample binding (published) authority. In cases without helpful controlling precedent, under the new rule, lawyers need not resort to other jurisdictions to find support, but instead may rely on relevant memorandum (not-for-publication) decisions within Indiana as persuasive precedent.

A task force of the Indianapolis Bar Association Appellate Practice Section crafted this proposal, which the executive committees of the Appellate Practice, Criminal Justice, and Litigation sections each respectively supported. The proposal was ultimately approved for submission to the Rules Committee by the IndyBar Board of Directors at its December 2013 meeting.

IndyBar members are encouraged to share your comments on the proposed rule. Feedback is essential to the Rules Committee and ultimately the Indiana Supreme Court justices in deciding whether to adopt a proposed rule or to make changes to the proposal. Without it, this rule will not be approved.

Comments can be short or lengthy. Consider beginning with an introduction of yourself (including years in practice and practice areas(s) before explaining your experience with the current rule and your reasons for supporting the change. You may wish to identify any specific instances where you have encountered and been unable to cite helpful memorandum decisions. Alternatively, a concise statement of your support for the rule will be valued.•

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT