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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT