ILNews

Supreme Court review focuses on Shepard's legacy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Randall Shepard era of Indiana’s Supreme Court is over, but in his last full year on the court, the former chief justice continued a legacy of consensus building and restoring primacy to the state Constitution.

Those are among the conclusions of an annual Supreme Court review for 2011.

“One of the things that always intrigued me is the degree of consensus Chief Justice Shepard often was able to garner,” said Jason Stephenson, a Barnes &Thornburg partner. With fellow partner Mark Crandley and associate Jeff Peabody, Stephenson is a co-author of “Examination of the Indiana Supreme Court Docket, Dispositions and Voting in 2011.”

The draft report cites the court’s consensus as a hallmark. “The justices of the Shepard Court departed from the majority when they were compelled to do so, but division on the court under Shepard’s leadership was the exception, not the norm.”

Stephenson said Shepard seemed to be leaving his mark on the court in his final couple of years, taking it upon himself to author more opinions than any other justice during that time.

The Indiana Constitution was the nondisciplinary issue most frequently addressed by justices in 2011, according to the report, following a trend occurring in the prior five years. The Shepard court might have prompted a cultural change in the Indiana bar so that lawyers and judges now properly view constitutional law in terms of a dual state and federal system, the draft report says.

“I almost think that will be the most significant mark left by the Chief Justice Shepard era on the court,” Stephenson said.

The review also noted a shift in the type of cases heard during Shepard’s time leading the court. A court once “bogged down in numerous (and often routine) criminal appeals” handled a caseload in 2011 in which only 45 percent of appeals were criminal.•

Click here to download the complete Supreme Court Focus article, which includes a breakdown of voting numbers by the justices.

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. 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