ILNews

Supreme Court considering reducing timeframe for filing transcripts in appeals

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure wants to hear from the legal community and general public on a proposed amendment that would shorten the time court reporters have to file their transcripts.

Currently, Indiana gives court reporters 90 days after the notice of appeal has been filed to submit the transcripts. Under the proposed rule change, the time a court reporter has to file the transcript with the trial court clerk or administrative agency would be reduced from 90 days to 30 days. In addition, under Appellate Rule 11(c), motions for extensions of time will be disfavored and only granted in extraordinary circumstances. The changes to Rule 11 necessitated other changes to the Appellate Rules.

The goal of the proposed changes is to reduce the time from the conclusion of a case to the issuance of an appellate decision. The standard for completion of a transcript established by the American Bar Association is 30 days and this is the same time limit used in the federal courts. Only three other states have a time limit as long as 90 days.

Details about the proposed rule changes are available on the court’s website.

The request for comment comes one day after the Supreme Court announced that state courts will adopt e-filing in 2015. The court currently is also accepting comment on e-filing.

Comments on the 30-day time limit to appeal will be accepted through June 23 and may be emailed to RulesComments@courts.in.gov or mailed to Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director, Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration, 39 S. Meridian St., Suite 500,
Indianapolis, IN 46204.

 

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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT