ILNews

'Rocket docket' now set for juvenile appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

New rules from the Indiana Supreme Court this week officially create an expedited "rocket docket" for certain juvenile cases going through the appellate system.

The court issued an order Tuesday amending the Indiana Trial Procedure Rule 59 and Rules of Appellate Procedure 14.1, which now read to specifically address those cases where state funding decisions for placement services are at issue. The amendments took effect Jan. 1, 2009.

These changes come after last year's legislative and state statute revisions contained in House Enrolled Act 1001, which as part of sweeping property-tax reform shifted funding of juvenile detention costs from counties to the state. The law gave the Indiana Department of Child Services more oversight authority of juvenile delinquency, status, and child welfare cases in a move designed to expand Indiana's ability to collect federal reimbursements and make the process more efficiently centralized through the state agency.

Courts and state officials have been working on this procedure since then to make sure those goals can be met while ensuring adequate appellate review.

Now, this expedited process will allow for the DCS and trial courts to get a quick review of any decisions about state funding with which they don't agree. The whole process is aimed at completing an appeal's procedural aspects within 30 days, without factoring in time for any court decision.

Rule 59 outlines how motions to correct error are handled, and this amendment adds a paragraph about orders relating to services, programs or placement of juvenile delinquents or those children in need of services. No motions to correct error will be allowed concerning various juvenile orders or decrees, the rule states.

Appeals of those orders and decrees are dealt with by Appellate Rule 14.1, which outlines the process for items including notice, transcript and records, memoranda, time extensions, rehearings, and petitions to transfer. Notice must be served and the clerk must complete the record within 15 days, and it must take priority over all other appeal transcripts and records, the rule says.

Each side is allowed five days to file a single memorandum, and no extensions are allowed. Rehearings following a court hearing are also prohibited by the rule. Any transfer petitions for the Indiana Supreme Court must be filed within five days after the Court of Appeals decision without any additional filings allowed.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT