ILNews

High court amends Indiana rules

IL Staff
September 24, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has issued 14 orders amending various Indiana rules.

The orders are file stamped Sept. 21 and were posted Thursday. Many of the changes involve minor administrative updates, although some amendments are more significant, including doubling the filing fee of relators when submitting an original action application to the Supreme Court Administrator. It will now cost $250 to file.

Even though an amendment to Administrative Rule 3 changes the Indiana judicial districts from 14 to 26 for purposes of judicial administration, the justices decided to leave the current structure of the Pro Bono Committees in Indiana at 14. The justices want to give the Indiana Pro Bono Commission and district committees time to study the effect of the new 26 districts on their operations and report on that to the court by Dec. 31, 2011. The 26 new judicial districts are effective Jan. 1, 2011.

Many of the orders were amended to include using the date a motion, judgment, or notice is noted in the Chronological Case Summary as the trigger date for filing appeals or other motions.

The administrative rules have been amended to require all trial courts to use case numbers that include the year and month in the second part of the case number. This is to make it easier to collect case filing statistics for periods of less than one year. The amendment also asks trial courts with the ability to do so to extend the last part of the cause number to six digits unless it requires reprogramming the court’s existing electronic case management system.

The Indiana court’s website has a complete list of the rules that were amended. All changes become effective Jan. 1, 2011.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT