Online opinions access hits a snag

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Court-watchers looking online to view Indiana's appellate decisions have been denied two days of opinions because those published rulings were not posted online.

A set of three dozen opinions came down Tuesday and Wednesday, but a change last month in how access is provided to those daily rulings meant that only online viewers, those directly involved in a decided case, or those who've traveled to the Indiana Statehouse to inspect opinions knew that any rulings had been released.

By noon today, a list of opinions provided to Indiana Lawyer showed one Supreme Court decision and eight for-publication rulings from the Court of Appeals coming down both days. The problem hadn't been fixed, and it isn't clear when opinions will start reappearing online.

"We regret this is happening, but it's a hazard of technology," said Indiana Supreme Court Administrator and Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith. "You'll have to do what you did before the Internet: travel to Indianapolis to look at them."

According to webmaster Lindsey Borschel, the problem is not within the appellate clerk's office but with the state service provider, Indiana Interactive. Staff tried to post yesterday's opinions, but the system crashed and they weren't input online. Borschel didn't know what caused the problem and hadn't received a response after alerting that provider to the problem.

This service provider system has been in place for years, and Borschel said she didn't recall anything like this happening before. At least one attorney had called the clerk's office after receiving notice an opinion was filed but wasn't able to see it online, Smith said.

In early December, the appellate clerk's office went paperless in the daily posting of opinions and orders to save money and be more environmentally friendly. The Internet became the main method for getting a look at any opinions, orders, and decisions from Indiana's appellate courts, although the public could still travel to clerk's office in downtown Indianapolis to view those documents. Anyone wanting to take copies or receive a fax would have to pay a fee per page.

The courtesy copies traditionally provided to Indiana Lawyer and other media outlets free of charge were eliminated, meaning that only those Web postings showed what was handed down each day.

At the time, Smith said the hope was to reduce paper consumption by about 176,000 double-sided sheets a year.

This is the second glitch that's hampered the online public access of opinions since the change, with the first happening Jan. 3. After starting a procedure to attach an electronic timestamp graphic on each opinion that shows date and time, the first Court of Appeals opinions of 2008 were password protected and locked so that people accessing the online opinions were unable to print them. That problem was an internal, unintended glitch resolved the same day.

"We're sort of at the mercy right now of our service provider," Smith said. "We are working diligently to do what we can to get the problem fixed."

This afternoon the clerk's office posted a notice online about the technical difficulties.

Opinions for the appellate courts are available online at, while disciplinary and other orders can be found at Separately, the day's opinions are also included on the Indiana Lawyer Web site each afternoon and included in Indiana Lawyer Daily.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  2. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  3. Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh who is helping Sister Fuller with this Con Artist Kevin Bart McCarthy scares Sister Joseph Therese, Patricia Ann Fuller very much that McCarthy will try and hurt Patricia Ann Fuller and Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh or any member of his family. Sister is very, very scared, (YES, I AM) This McCarthy guy is a real, real CON MAN and crook. I try to totall flatter Kevin Bart McCARTHY to keep him from hurting my best friends in this world which are Carolyn Rose and Paul Hartman. I Live in total fear of this man Kevin Bart McCarthy and try to praise him as a good man to keep us ALL from his bad deeds. This man could easy have some one cause us a very bad disability. You have to PRAISAE in order TO PROTECT yourself. He lies and makes up stories about people and then tries to steal if THEY OWN THRU THE COURTS A SPECIAL DEVOTION TO PROTECT, EX> Our Lady of America DEVOTION. EVERYONE who reads this, PLEASE BE CAREFUL of Kevin Bart McCarthy of Indianapolis, IN My Phone No. IS 419-435-3838.

  4. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.

  5. I had a hospital and dcs caseworker falsify reports that my child was born with drugs in her system. I filed a complaint with the Indiana department of health....and they found that the hospital falsified drug screens in their investigation. Then I filed a complaint with human health services in Washington DC...dcs drug Testing is unregulated and is indicating false positives...they are currently being investigated by human health services. Then I located an attorney and signed contracts one month ago to sue dcs and Anderson community hospital. Once the suit is filed I am taking out a loan against the suit and paying a law firm to file a writ of mandamus challenging the courts jurisdiction to invoke chins case against me. I also forwarded evidence to a u.s. senator who contacted hhs to push an investigation faster. Once the lawsuit is filed local news stations will be running coverage on the situation. Easy day....people will be losing their jobs soon...and judge pancol...who has attempted to cover up what has happened will also be in trouble. The drug testing is a kids for cash and federal funding situation.