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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT