Appellate case search gets new look

June 19, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you like the changes made to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys search function, you’ll appreciate the upgrades made to the appellate case search tool.

The Indiana Judicial Branch rolled out an upgraded appellate case search application  Wednesday with the hope of making the search process easier for users.

The new search function is in a beta test and is accessible by clicking on “Appellate case search” under the “Services” section on the court’s homepage. Both the new version and the current search systems will be accessible through that link.

Indiana Supreme Court Public Information Officer Kathryn Dolan said the courts are keeping both systems up to allow people to use whatever version they are most comfortable with, although eventually the current search system will be taken down.

Highlights from the upgraded case search include:
-    Simple and advanced searches
-    Finding all of a specific type of case, such as capital appeals before the Supreme Court or juvenile delinquency cases before the Court of Appeals
-    Navigating between the search page, the results, and case details by using built-in navigation or web browser navigation
-    Organizing events in the case in chronological or reverse chronological order

The upgrade has a similar look to the one made earlier this year to the Roll of Attorneys.

In addition to the upgraded search, users can answer a 10-question survey to provide the courts feedback on the new model.

I had some trouble navigating the search when using the “back” button on my browser. It took me back to the original search screen and displayed a message that said “Please wait while we search for cases that match your criteria.” It was stuck on that screen, so I had to make my way back to the original search screen by hitting the “forward” button on my browser, then clicking “new search.”

Dolan did emphasize that this new search tool is a work in progress and feedback from users will help developers with any necessary changes.

Despite some bugs, I already appreciate this search tool much more than the current one, which is not quite user friendly.

What do you think about the upgrades?
 

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
  1. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT