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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT