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?


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
  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?