ILNews

IndyBar Board Approves Rule Change Proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association Board of Directors approved a proposed rule amendment generated by the bar’s Appellate Practice Section at its Dec. 4 meeting. The rule amendment, which has since been submitted to the Rules Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court, amends Rule 65 of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, shortening the deadline to file a motion to publish in the Court of Appeals to 15 days and permitting the citation of Not-for-Publication (NFP) opinions as persuasive precedent. The proposal specifies that only NFP opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2015 be permitted to be cited.

The proposal originated in the Appellate Practice section but was also approved by the executive committees of the Criminal Justice Section and the Litigation Section earlier in 2013. The section members of all three sections were also surveyed to gauge opinions on possible changes, with 79 percent of respondents in favor of an amendment to the rule.

The documentation provided to the Rules Committee details the anticipated impact of the proposed amendment:

Deadlines for Motions to Publish Under Appellate Rule 65(B): Shortening the deadline to file a motion to publish from 30 to 15 days would codify the unwritten policy and preference of many judges on the Court of Appeals. Because a petition to transfer must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of an NFP Court of Appeals’ opinion, a shorter deadline will provide notice to all parties that an NFP decision may be published, which may affect some parties’ decision whether to seek transfer.

Allowing Citation of NFP Decisions: Rule 65(D) presently prohibits citations of or reliance on NFP opinions except for the very narrow purposes of establishing res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case. Thus, in trial courts across the state and on appeal, lawyers who find a NFP opinion with similar facts or helpful reasoning may not cite the opinion, even though they are permitted to cite any case decided by a court in another jurisdiction. The proposed rule would remedy this anomaly by permitting citation of NFP Indiana opinions as persuasive precedent while making clear that no party is under an obligation to cite any NFP opinion. The very modest change is warranted by modern technology and enjoys strong support of a broad section of the bar.

The proposed rule would maintain two classes of opinions. Published opinions would remain precedential and important to find and follow. NFP opinions would remain less significant—but would assume some significance. In cases where the published authority does not provide a complete answer, lawyers would be permitted to rely on NFP opinions as persuasive authority only.

This approach would be consistent with federal practice and the practice in a growing number of states. More importantly, it would allow counsel another way to advance and support their arguments, which is especially important in some areas of civil law in which there are relatively few published Indiana cases. Finally, by permitting citation to only NFP opinions issued after Jan. 1, 2015, the proposed rule will alleviate the burden on counsel to search through older NFP opinions.

To view additional information about the proposed rule amendment, visit indybar.org.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

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