ILNews

Hamilton County to start using Odyssey

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hamilton County will join nearly 40 other courts and 13 counties when it begins using Odyssey, a statewide case management system provided by the Indiana Supreme Court. Odyssey will connect the Hamilton County courts and clerk to the network of other county courts, clerks, law enforcement, and state agencies.

It also makes court information available to the public online for free.

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Justice Frank Sullivan Jr., Hamilton Superior Court Judge William J. Hughes and Hamilton County Clerk Peggy Beaver will be on hand at the county's historic courthouse Tuesday morning for the implementation of the system.

Since Hamilton and Owen counties use the same type of CMS, Owen County started using Odyssey earlier this year so the state could learn about the data conversion before adding the larger Hamilton County, according to Mary DePrez, director and counsel for trial court technology, Indiana State Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration's Judicial Technology and Automation Committee.

Costs to implement Odyssey are covered by JTAC from the proceeds of a court filing fee dedicated to the project by the General Assembly. The system has been designed to save taxpayer money by reducing paperwork and eliminating multiple data entries.

Odyssey was first installed in December 2007 in 10 Indiana courts on a pilot basis. The system will eventually connect all of Indiana courts' case management systems.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. 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.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT