ILNews

Judge: More small claims reforms pursued

Dave Stafford
September 4, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

More reforms that could address “forum shopping” in Marion County Small Claims courts will be undertaken this month, the judge presiding over a review of township court operations said.

Marion Circuit Judge Louis Rosenberg made the announcement Tuesday at a news conference that also opened the 30-day public comment period for new rules for Marion County Small Claims courts. Proposed rules are expected to be posted Tuesday at www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/ and www.indy.gov under the Circuit Court link, and comments may be made through Oct. 5. The new rules will be adopted, modified or rejected by Oct. 12. If adopted, the proposed rules will take effect Jan. 1.

Those proposed rules don’t address the practice of large filers concentrating in particular township courts, but Rosenberg said discussions on how to address forum shopping would begin Sept. 19 with the rules committee of the Indiana Supreme Court.

“I view this as kind of a coordinated effort with the Supreme Court,” he said.

Rosenberg said the rules would bring uniformity to the nine township courts, standardizing hours, forms, filing fees and notice of the rights of litigants, particularly those representing themselves. The rules also would require, among other things, that court staff wear identifiers, that all parties to a lawsuit have equal access to court case files, and that township judges not be allowed to practice in other township courts.

The rules were developed by an advisory committee formed after Court of Appeals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau issued a report that recommended an overhaul in the way the courts were structured and reforms in the way they did business. The study and report followed a Wall Street Journal article citing practices in the township courts.

Rosenberg said the proposed rules would go a long way toward improving the credibility of the small claims courts as a fair forum.

“It’s a good first step in the right direction,” said Christine Hayes Hickey of Rubin & Levin P.C., who served on the Small Claims Rules Advisory Committee.

Comments on the proposed rules may be emailed to aida.ramirez@indy.gov with the subject line “Public comment on local rules.”




 

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. 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