ILNews

Technical glitch, now fixed, hits revised opinions

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Attorneys who logged on this morning to the Indiana Judiciary Web site to read and print opinions were met with a challenge: you could view, but couldn't print.

The first Court of Appeals opinions of the New Year were password protected and locked so that people accessing the online opinions were unable to print them.

That was an internal, unintended glitch and the problem's been resolved, according to Supreme Court Administrator and Appellate Clerk Kevin Smith.

The opinions posted earlier this morning disappeared temporarily and reappeared around 10:30 a.m. and allowed users to print them.

That glitch came as a result of a procedure started within the appellate clerk's office - a timestamp graphic on each opinion showing date and time it was posted.

In early December, the appellate clerk's office made the decision to not provide printed courtesy copies of opinions in an effort to save paper and costs. The Internet is now the main method for viewing and obtaining appellate opinions. Opinions can be viewed at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions, as well as on Indiana Lawyer's Web site and via Indiana Lawyer Daily.

Smith said that move to eliminate paper complicated the process with WestLaw and LexisNexis, which had previously required a final, stamped printed copy of each opinion. As a result, Smith asked the information technology department to create a graphic to include so that an e-version could be sent.
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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT