ILNews

Justices clarify 'notes on oral arguments' use

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court issued an order May 18 informing attorneys that filing of “notes on oral arguments” without leave of court is no longer part of Indiana’s appellate practice.  

The clarification came in an order on a 12-page “notes on oral argument” filed in Hugh David Reed v. Edward Reid, et al., No. 40S01-1107-PL-436. The notes consisted of comment on the oral arguments, citations and legal arguments, and was essentially an advocate’s brief, according to the justices.

No opinion has mentioned these kinds of notes in the last 50 years, and “To whatever extent the filing of 'notes on oral argument' without leave of court was once part of Indiana’s appellate practice, it no longer is …,” wrote Chief Justice Brent Dickson.

“Appellate Rule 48 authorizes the filing of a Notice of Additional Authorities when pertinent and significant authorities come to the attention of a party after oral argument, but comment about the citations is limited to a parenthetical or single sentence explaining the authority.”

The appellees’ notes document doesn’t conform to that rule, so the notes were stricken.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • A link to the Order
    It would be helpful if a link to the actual order was provided in the article.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT