ILNews

Emergency transfers by Supreme Court not common

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

What attorneys might consider an emergency legal issue may not draw the same urgency from the Indiana Supreme Court.

In fact, it usually doesn’t.

Emergency transfer requests to the state’s highest court don’t happen often, and when they do, it is rare for the justices to grant a request and decide to intervene and take jurisdiction on an appeal. What the infrequency shows is that most attorneys practicing before Indiana’s appellate courts use the process that’s in place, but only rarely do the highest jurists see a need to sidestep the Court of Appeals to give guidance to the lawyers and judges who must address those legal questions in the trenches.

“If you look at all the appeals, you can see that they’re really all over the board, and it’s hard to ID any single theme that runs through the cases,” said Indianapolis appellate attorney Bryan Babb. “That’s a big deal for them to take a case, because they have to start from scratch.”

The Indiana appellate clerk’s office doesn’t specifically track emergency transfer information and compile it within annual reports for trend watching, but figures show that only three of the 20 emergency requests made in the past two years have been granted under Appellate Rule 56(A). Everything from election law to criminal and worker’s compensation issues have been pitched on urgency, but most haven’t been accepted at that stage.
 

Bryan Babb Babb

Tracking data from years past is difficult without the clerk’s office information showing how many motions have been filed. Information can be found using WestLaw, Lexis, or even the published court decisions themselves if the court specifies that it was a 56(A) matter.

Through the years, appellate attorneys Babb and George Patton with Bose McKinney & Evans have compiled those granted transfers based on legal research, giving appellate practitioners an idea of what the court has accepted on an emergency basis. An updated edition of the Appellate Procedure book last published in 2001 is in the works, and Indianapolis law professor Joel Schumm will be compiling criminal cases that have received transfer. The last pocket part issued with that information is for 2009-2010.

Cases listed in the most recent treatise and data compiled from legal research and appellate dockets show at least 50 cases have been granted emergency transfer going back to 1974, though the list may not be complete.
 

Jon Laramore Laramore

“It used to be par for course that the court granted about one a year,” said attorney Jon Laramore with Baker & Daniels. “It’s not like there’s a policy, but that’s how it worked out, and I’m not sure how that plays out as far as percentages based on the total number of petitions.”

Emergency transfer motions before the court are supposed to show an appeal involves a substantial question of law of great public importance as well as some emergency requiring the court’s speedy determination. Attorneys say that can be a tricky set of criteria open to interpretation, but the Indiana courts nearly 40 years ago defined issues of “public concern” as those related to public safety and well-being.

Reflecting on the cases he’s seen transferred on the emergency basis, Patton said that the number has been pretty steady through the years. He’s had a couple granted and denied, and the likelihood of that happening comes down to the specifics of a case and whether any disagreement exists at the lower courts.

Those appellate practitioners who regularly argue before the state appeals courts say these types of emergency requests should be made sparingly by lawyers in order to get the most benefit out of the court system that’s in place.

Through his decade of practice, Babb has been involved in four emergency transfers, and the court has granted two of those – an annexation case in Hamilton County about four years ago and an asbestos case about eight years ago. He also served as amicus curiae counsel on a sewer district case granted on emergency transfer in 2008.

His most recent emergency transfer request, which was denied, involved child support issues. Justices denied emergency transfer in January in the case of Allan C. Bir v. Cynthia Bir, No. 06A01-1009-DR-449. The appeal, still pending at the Court of Appeals level, calls into question the constitutionality of the stateEmergency-factbox’s new child support guidelines that began in 2010 – revisions that altered the payment scheme for high-income earners and raised the ceiling on what obligations would be paid.

Since the justices had revised the rules, Babb and his fellow attorneys argued that the Court of Appeals is obligated to follow the new guidelines the higher court had set and so it wasn’t in a position to objectively review this appeal.

Both legal teams disputed whether the case rose to the level of “great public importance” required under Rule 56(A), with the mother’s attorneys footnoting in a brief that it applied to only a small number of families statewide and doesn’t impact more common issues such as public education, utilities, voting, or religious freedom. The father’s attorneys contended that the issue was that important because it impacts other pending appeals of high-income earners who need guidance.

In the end, the court decided against taking the case, and it will now be considered by the Court of Appeals. While the intermediate appellate court is efficient and speedy compared to other states, Babb said the process can still take more than a year before it even ends up at the transfer stage again.

“There’s no guarantee the (Supreme) court would do anything differently, but you just know that there’s nowhere to go after that,” he said, noting that a federal suit might be possible if U.S. law is involved. “It’s a certainty that’s provided in knowing that Indiana’s court of last resort has looked at the case and issue, and that’s the end.”

The court recently took the case of State v. FreeEats.com, Inc., No. 07A01-1007-MI-323, which involved “robo-calls” and some political free speech issues. Justices heard arguments in January, and that case has the potential to impact how residents receive those types of calls, especially during political seasons.

Generally, election law issues are cases that the court looks favorably on as a possible emergency transfer, attorneys say. But just because it’s an election law issue doesn’t mean the court will take it. Justices last year twice denied an election-specific appeal prior to the November general election, ultimately allowing a Lake County judicial candidate to remain on the ballot despite a challenge to his eligibility. The issue involved William I. Fine’s candidacy for the Lake Circuit bench, after the Indiana Election Commission in September struck him from the ballot and a Marion Superior judge later reinstated his name for voters to choose. Challenger Michael Lambert objected to how the county Republican Party chair had chosen Fine for the vacancy by vote rather than holding a caucus, and he tried to have Fine removed. But the Supreme Court denied two Rule 56(A) motions in September, and the lower appellate court declined to fast track the case prior to the election, which Fine lost. That appeal remains pending and hasn’t progressed since late last year, according to the appellate docket.

Babb sees the court’s denial as part of the larger trend.

“We generally want to use the benefit of the Court of Appeals process setup in this state, and the fact that we have so few of these emergency transfers is a sign of how thorough our law is interpreted in Indiana and what kind of guidance attorneys and trial judges are getting,” he said. “You’re going to get more crystallized, distilled issues as we move up the appeals process, from the three-judge panel to a court one-third that size, and that just means more eyes are looking at it for the most comprehensive result.”•
 

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT