ILNews

Court filings lowest in 7 years, 2011 stats show

Dave Stafford
October 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The number of cases filed in Indiana courts in 2011 is the lowest since 2004, according to exhaustive data in the annual Judicial Service Report released Monday.

About 1.68 million new cases were filed in trial courts last year, and expenses for all courts likewise declined. Courts spent about $392.5 million in the 2010-2011 fiscal year, down slightly from the $393.3 million spent in the prior fiscal year.

“Other than the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, I can’t think of any other agency of state government that touches so many Hoosiers,” Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson said Monday at a news conference where the annual report “Honored to Serve” was released.

The 1,725-page report can be viewed online. The report and those from prior years also are available for review in the Indiana Supreme Court Law Library.

Dickson said the courts continue to be underfunded and judges’ workloads are still higher than they should be. He noted that only about 1 percent of the state budget funds courts, and the bulk of funding is picked up by local government.

Dickson said he intends to talk with lawmakers in the 2013 legislative session about the need to boost court funding, particularly for technology that he said would save taxpayers money and improve court efficiency. Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said Dickson has suggested an increase in court filing fees to fund improvements in court technology.

A boost of funding might be needed because the data shows the courts collecting significantly less in filing fees, user fees and other revenue. During fiscal year 2010-2011, the figure was $211.8 million collected – a 9 percent decline from collections in the prior fiscal year that topped $232.8 million.

The number of cases rising through the appellate courts is down significantly, Dickson said. Last year the Supreme Court heard 84 cases compared to between 90 and 100 in typical years.

“Our numbers are down, the Court of Appeals numbers are down,” Dickson said. “We’re sort of scratching our heads” trying to determine why.

The data doesn’t always provide answers to the decreases in cases, he said. The information does not, for instance, indicate the number of potential filings that were averted by alternate dispute resolution. On the appellate level, it doesn’t consider cases that higher courts believe the trial court got right, or a potential decline in the number of appeals because of the cost.

Examples of data in the 2011 report highlighted by court staff include:

  • Indiana courts have seen an 11 percent decrease in the number of cases filed since 2002.
  • 193 murder cases were filed in 2011, a 31 percent decrease since 2002.
  • 1,298 civil and criminal jury trials were held statewide –  approximately one for every 1,300 cases filed.
  • About one in five cases involved a pro se litigant.
  • There were 30,272 mortgage foreclosure filings, a 31 percent decline from 2007
  • The 10,665 Child In Need of Services cases is down 12 percent from 2010
  • An interpreter was used in 13,992 cases.
     
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