ILNews

Northern District seeks comment on local rules

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana is seeking public comment on several proposed local rules: LR 7.1, Motion Practice; Length and Form of Briefs; 56.1, Summary Judgment; 200.1, Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings; and Appendix C – Notice to Pro Se Litigant. The proposed revision and commentary are available on the court’s website.

Comments must be submitted by Oct. 22 online or in writing to Local Rules Comments, Office of the Clerk, 204 S. Main St., Room 304, South Bend, IN 46601.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana is also seeking comment on a proposed change to Rule B-9010-2, Appearance and Withdrawal, amending the rule to clarify when an appearance is required to be filed. The proposed change is on the court’s website.


Comments must be sent by Oct. 14 to Christopher M. DeToro, Clerk of the Court, United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Indiana, 401 S. Michigan St., South Bend, Ind. 46601-2365; or by e-mail to comments@innb.uscourts.gov.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT