ILNews

Justices' transfer action posted online weekly

Michael W. Hoskins
May 24, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In order to increase efficiency and reduce administrative redundancies at the appellate clerk's office, attorneys and law firms will no longer receive weekly e-mails about cases the Indiana Supreme Court has agreed to consider.

Indiana Appellate Clerk and Supreme Court Administrator Kevin S. Smith sent an e-mail Friday that alerted members of the public and legal community about the change. The clerk's office for several years had been sending weekly updates about the state justices' transfers granted during their private weekly conferences.

Those weekly updates known as the "Clerk's Transfer Action Report" will be replaced with full online lists about the appeal transfers and denials by the Indiana Supreme Court. The transfer disposition information is already being posted on the state judiciary's website at www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions, and will also be publicly released in Twitter updates by the state's highest court.

"Because the Clerk's Transfer Action Report contains the same information that our staff is separately typing up in these "Transfer Granted" emails, it makes little sense, administratively, for us to continue separately producing and transmitting the "Transfer Granted" e-mails as well, especially when the resources we devote to this effort are greatly needed elsewhere," Smith wrote in the e-mail.

Smith also pointed out that his office is creating this report in a Microsoft Excel document, allowing viewers to sort and filter the data on whatever cases they might want to see.

Traditionally, those transfer granted e-mails from a clerk's office staff member have gone out as soon as Thursday on the day of the justices' conferences, but usually are received by Monday the following week. Smith said the online reports will be posted in a timely manner and depend on various factors such as staffing availability, the number of transfer orders issued by the Supreme Court, and other court orders and activity that may be happening simultaneously with the three state appellate courts.

With the most recent conference activity from last week, the clerk's office posted the online report today about the 14 cases considered on Thursday. Justices didn't grant any transfers. But the denial in Cory A. McClarin v. State of Indiana, No. 20A05-0909-CR-553, in which all the justices concurred, there is an interesting and uncommon note regarding Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard's thought on the case ruled on by the Court of Appeals in March.

The denial note says the chief justice "joins in denying the Petition to Transfer, believing that the trial court has correctly been affirmed, but compliments to attorney Donald Shuler on the very high quality of the brief he filed on his client's behalf."

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