Recent Articles
Federal Bar Update: Supreme Court takes rare steps on procedural decisions
May 8, 2013
With its limited docket, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely decides procedural issues, focusing instead on weighty constitutional
issues or resolving split interpretations of federal statutes. This term, however, the Supreme Court has addressed several
procedural issues.
MoreFederal Bar Update: Pilot program for discovery in employment cases
March 27, 2013
In the Southern District of Indiana, if you are litigating an adverse-action employment case you might be part of a pilot
program that aims to streamline and tailor discovery and scheduling.
MoreMaley: Updated series is valuable for practitioners
February 27, 2013
As the practice has moved from law-firm libraries to online research on laptops and iPads, there remains a place for comprehensive,
in-depth and practical treatises and practice guides. Since 1998, Westlaw’s Business and Commercial Litigation in
Federal Courts has been just such a valuable resource.
MoreFederal Bar Update: Southern District of Indiana adopts rule amendments
January 16, 2013
The Southern District has amended several Local Rules. These were approved in late December and took effect Jan. 1.
MoreFederal Bar Update: Rule changes, 7th Circuit procedural decisions
December 19, 2012
As federal practitioners know, each Dec. 1 new federal rule amendments take effect. In most recent years there have been significant
changes to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure each December.
MoreFederal Bar Update: Northern, Southern District courts cleaning up local rules
November 7, 2012
Local Rule amendments are in the works in the Northern District and Southern District of Indiana, with amendments to take
effect Jan. 1.
MoreFederal Bar Update: Opinion provides insight on attorney fees in FDCPA cases
September 12, 2012
Federal courts routinely determine fee petitions for prevailing parties in various fee-shifting cases. A recent opinion from
Magistrate Judge Denise LaRue illustrates guiding principles here.
MoreFederal Bar Update: No changes to federal rules this year
August 1, 2012
Federal rule amendments take affect Dec. 1 of each year after a lengthy, time-consuming process of transmittal from the Judicial
Conference to the Supreme Court and then to Congress. This coming December, for the first time in many years, there are no
amendments on the horizon for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, or Federal Rules
of Evidence.
MoreFederal Bar Update: 6-month update on changes to removal statutes
June 6, 2012
As readers will recall, the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 took effect Jan. 6. Since the
act took effect, it has been cited by name in 13 reported decisions, most of which simply deal with the effective date of
the act.
MoreFederal Bar Update: Uniform Case Management Plan changes
April 11, 2012
The Southern District of Indiana recently modified two sections of the court’s Uniform Case Management Plan regarding
experts.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!