ILNews

Public input wanted on proposed changes to court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court wants to hear from judges, attorneys and the general public as it considers possible changes to court rules.

A nine-member Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure was created by the court to conduct a continuous study of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure along with other rules as directed.

The rule changes being considered include the:
•    Wavier of Counsel by Juveniles (procedure before a child can say he/she does not want an attorney);
•    Electronically Filed Briefs (two proposals for submitting electronic briefs);
•    Small Claims Venue (brings township small claims court venue rules in line with similar courts); and
•    Rules of Evidence (revisions to increase conformity between Indiana’s Rules and Federal Rules).

The complete list of rule changes with descriptions can be viewed here. 

Public comments about the proposed rule changes will be taken until June 5, 2013. Comments can be sent via email to RulesComments@courts.in.gov or in writing to Lilia G. Judson, Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 500, Indianapolis, IN 46204.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • proposed small claims rule change
    The proposed change would appear to make a mistaken filing in an improper township a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The rule should state that venue is proper in any township in the county but state in what township preferred venue lies.

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT