COA footnotes: more past delays found

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Examples are still surfacing about how files had been delayed in getting transmitted to the Indiana Court of Appeals, although the Appellate Clerk's office has been backlog-free for about a month and these instances only highlight what had happened in the past.

Two opinions in the past week show cases that were not transmitted from the clerk's office for eight months and almost two years, respectively. Both included footnotes explaining the situation, recent reforms, and advice to counsel about keeping tabs on case statutes.

"We have recently become aware of some difficulties in receiving the prompt transmission of fully-briefed appeals to our court," says a footnote in today's decision Karen R. Berry Williams v. State of Indiana, No. 73A01-0511-CR-513, and the March 20 Not for Publication ruling on Jerry A. Gore v. State of Indiana, No. 18A05-0610-CR-587.

Williams was fully briefed March 26, 2006, but not transferred to the appellate court until Feb. 18, 2008; Gore was briefed June 21, 2007, and transferred Feb. 26, 2008, the footnotes say. At least four opinions dating to late last year have cited similar issues.

The footnotes also mention Lake County Board of Elections and Registration, et al. v. Anthony Copeland, No. 45A04-0710-CV-560, issued on Feb. 27, 2008, and Gilbert v. State of Indiana, 874 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), released in October 2007.

Chief Judge John Baker, who authored both opinions and inserted the footnotes, told Indiana Lawyer earlier this week that he was proud of how the clerk's office had addressed and resolved the issues. Most credit should be given to Clerk Kevin Smith, the judge said, because he has been putting measures in place to solve the issues since the fall.

"The Clerk of the Court has assured us that a new system and periodic inventory review program have been implemented to minimize future delays," today's footnote in Williams says.

Dealing with a backlog that's been evident for months, Smith started making changes in late 2007 after becoming concerned with the ability to keep up with growing caseloads and intake workloads. The office implemented staff and organizational changes in January that involved hiring new employees, shuffling existing staff, and creating an extra morning shift to process paperwork more quickly. He reported in late February that his office had purged the backlog and no filing was more than 24 hours old from its arrival date, and everything is docketed within a day.

Chief Judge Baker said attorneys can check the clerk's online docket to confirm that the case has, in fact, been transmitted to the court after being fully briefed.

Smith also encourages attorneys to contact his office directly if they have any concerns or do not see a mailed submission posted on the online docket within five business days. He also suggests that appellate attorneys give his office a heads up about a time-sensitive motion or filing they plan to make, as well as not waiting until the last minute. The Appellate Clerk's office can be reached directly at (317) 232-1930 or by sending an e-mail via the Indiana Judiciary's Web site.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?