Federal Bar Update

Federal Bar Update: Minor rule changes and attorney-client privilege

October 22, 2014
John Maley
Any amendments to various federal rules always take effect Dec. 1. Some years there are significant changes, other years few or no amendments are in play. This December is very modest in terms of federal rule amendments.
More

Federal Bar Update: Proposed rule changes, redacting documents

August 27, 2014
John Maley
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Civil Rules has published proposed amendments to several rules and is seeking public comment.
More

Federal Bar Update: Rule 30(b)(6) depositions

July 2, 2014
John Maley
One of the most useful tools in discovery is the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, allowing a party to depose an entity, which must then produce one or more witnesses to testify to enumerated topics.
More

Federal Bar Update: Free CLE, hyperlinks and award nominations

May 7, 2014
John Maley
As noted previously, a new pilot program was underway in the Southern District of Indiana for including hyperlinks in briefs.
More

Federal Bar Update: Court launches new website, case management plan

January 15, 2014
John Maley
The Southern District’s website is revamped, with a new and improved look and feel. The case opinion search feature remains and allows searching by judge and/or date. It can be a useful tool to get recent standards, for instance, on common issues.
More

Federal Bar Update: Rule 45 amendments on subpoenas took effect Dec. 1

December 18, 2013
John Maley
Amendments took effect Dec. 1 to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also, amendments took effect to several of the Southern District of Indiana’s Local Rules.
More

Easterbrook: 7th Circuit 'nation's leader' in productivity

May 22, 2013
Dave Stafford
Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals presented his final State of the Circuit address during the Circuit conference this month in Indianapolis, describing the federal appellate court for Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin as perhaps the nation’s most industrious.
More

Editorial: Personal jurisdiction theories still evolving

August 3, 2011
John Maley
As most litigators know, in Asahi Metal v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102 (1987), a plurality of the Supreme Court embraced the stream-of-commerce theory of personal jurisdiction, which generally holds that if a manufacturer or distributor has sufficient knowledge and control of its distribution system, it can be sued in a state in which its products cause injury. Since Asahi Metal, the theory has evolved somewhat in federal and state appellate courts but had not been revisited by the Supreme Court.
More

Federal Bar Update: Avoid multiple summary judgment motions

June 8, 2011
John Maley
The Southern District of Indiana has amended its Uniform Case Management Plan to include new language regarding summary judgment motions.
More

Federal Bar Update: Client representative at settlement conferences

September 29, 2010
John Maley
In the Southern District of Indiana, settlement conferences are routinely held in most civil cases before the assigned magistrate judge.
More

Federal Bar Update: More federal rule changes on horizonRestricted Content

August 18, 2010
John Maley
For 2010, the Supreme Court approved a package of amendments in late April that will amend several appellate rules, bankruptcy rules, criminal rules, civil rules, and an evidence rule.
More

Federal Bar Update: Permissible fishing in discovery processRestricted Content

July 7, 2010
John Maley
John Maley writes about how one recent discovery order is interesting and has potential broader significance beyond the dispute between the parties.
More
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