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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT