DOCSLIB.ORG

Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Rule Amendments, Remarkable Case Law, and Court Guidance for Appellate Practitioners

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Rule Amendments, Remarkable Case Law, and Court Guidance for Appellate Practitioners DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIANA APPELLATE PROCEDURE: RULE AMENDMENTS, REMARKABLE CASE LAW, AND COURT GUIDANCE FOR APPELLATE PRACTITIONERS BRYAN H. BABB* BRADLEY M. DICK** INTRODUCTION The Indiana Supreme Court promulgates the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure (“Appellate Rules” or “Rules”), and Indiana’s appellate courts—the Indiana Supreme Court (“supreme court”), the Indiana Court of Appeals (“court of appeals”), and the Indiana Tax Court—interpret and apply the Rules. This Article summarizes amendments to the Rules, analyzes cases interpreting the Rules, and highlights potential pitfalls that appellate practitioners can avoid. The Article does not cover every case interpreting the appellate rules that has occurred during the survey period.1 Instead, it focuses on the most significant decisions. I. RULE AMENDMENTS The supreme court amended the Appellate Rules, effective January 1, 2014, and the amendments affect Rules 23, 28, 30, and the sample forms.2 First, and most significantly, the court amended Rule 30 to facilitate the use of electronic transcripts.3 The Rule previously required a trial court’s approval before appellants could use electronic transcripts on appeal,4 but now the trial court’s approval is no longer required.5 Under the amended Rule, with the consent of all parties and the court of appeals, the court reporter must “submit only an electronically formatted transcript.”6 Second, the supreme court amended Rule 28 to provide that in cases arising * Partner, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. B.S., 1989, United States Military Academy; M.S.B.A., 1994, Boston University; J.D., cum laude, 1999, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; Law Clerk to Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr. of the Indiana Supreme Court, 1999-2000. ** Associate, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP. B.A., 2003, Indiana University; J.D., magna cum laude, 2010, University of Michigan Law School; Law Clerk to Justice Loretta H. Rush of the Indiana Supreme Court, 2013-2014. 1. The survey period is between October 1, 2012, and September 30, 2013. 2. See Order Amending Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. 94S00-1301-MS-30 (Ind. Sept. 19, 2013), available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-rules-2013-0919-appellate.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/4FBN-SHN7; Order Amending Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. 94S00-1301-MS-30 (Ind. Sept. 13, 2013), available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order- rules-2013-0913-appellate.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/AB3Q-B7AG [hereinafter Order]. 3. Order Amending Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure at 2, 94200-1301MS-30 (Sept. 13, 2013), available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-rules-2013-0913-appellate.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/AY2C-T22V. 4. Id. 5. Id. 6. Id. 970 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 47:969 under Ind. Trial Rule 60.5—Mandate of Funds—“the Transcript shall be in an electronic format,” as provided in Rule 30 or “as otherwise ordered pursuant to Rule 61.”7 Rule 61 provides that an appeal under Trial Rule 60.5 shall proceed in accordance with the orders of the supreme court. 8 Third, the supreme court added language to Rule 23(C)(8),9 requiring parties to file an original and one copy of “any acknowledgement of the order setting oral argument.”10 Fourth, the court revised the sample forms.11 The court revised the Notice of Appeal form to require appellants to specify their grounds for appeal, i.e., “[t]his is an appeal from an order declaring a statute unconstitutional.”12 In addition, the “Certificate of Filing and Service” form now requires litigants to specify the means of service they used and specifically name the person served.13 Finally, as noted in the 2012 survey article, the court amended Appellate Rule 9(A), effective January 1, 2012, to require appellants to file the notice of appeal with the clerk of the appellate courts, as opposed to the trial court clerk as the Rule previously required.14 When the court amended the Rule, it included a grace period: until January 1, 2014, appellants who timely filed “the Notice of Appeal with the trial court clerk or Administrative Agency, instead of the Clerk as required by App. R. 9(A)(1),” were deemed to have timely filed the appeal and the appeal was not subject to forfeiture.15 The grace period expired on January 1, 2014, meaning that Notices of Appeal that are timely filed with the trial court clerk or Administrative Agency will not be deemed timely filed and will be subject to forfeiture.16 II. CASE LAW INTERPRETING APPELLATE RULES Both the court of appeals and the supreme court issued opinions analyzing various Appellate Rules this year. The courts tackled a broad range of issues, 7. Id. at 1. 8. IND. R. APP. P. 61 (providing that “Supreme Court Review of cases involving the mandate of funds is commenced pursuant to the procedure in Trial Rule 60.5(B). The appeal shall thereafter proceed in accordance with such orders on briefing, argument and procedure as the Supreme Court may in its discretion issue.”). 9. IND. R. APP. P. 23(C)(8) (providing, “Acknowledgement of Oral Argument. An original and one (1) copy of any acknowledgment of the order setting oral argument. See Rule 52(C).”) 10. See Order, supra note 2, at 1. 11. Id. at 2. 12. Id. at 4. 13. Id. at 6-7. 14. Bryan H. Babb & Oni Harton, Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Rule Amendments, Remarkable Case Law, and Court Guidance for Appellate Practitioners, 45 IND. L. REV. 959, 960 (2012). 15. Order Amending Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. 94S00-1101-MS-17 (Ind. Sep. 20, 2011), available at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/rule-amends-2011-order-amend- 2011-appellate.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/Q5CA-9J65. 16. See id. 2014] APPELLATE PROCEDURE 971 such as when criminal defendants may appeal their convictions to which version of a published opinion controls and when the version published on the supreme court’s website differs from West Publishing’s version. But in the most important appellate procedure opinion during the reporting period, the court of appeals addressed when and how a third party may appeal a trial court’s discovery order. A. Third Party Appeal of Discovery Order In a case with many procedural twists and turns, the court of appeals held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Indianapolis Star’s (“The Star”) appeal of a trial court’s discovery order, which required The Star to disclose the identity of a person who had anonymously commented on The Star’s website.17 This case began in 2010, when an anonymous commenter, under the pseudonym “DownWithTheColts,” posted a comment to a story on indystar.com, insinuating that Junior Achievement’s former president Jeffrey Miller had stolen funds.18 Miller sued for defamation and sought to obtain the identity of DownWithTheColts from The Star through non-party discovery.19 The trial court ordered The Star to disclose the commenter’s identity.20 The Star appealed the order, and Miller filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the court of appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction.21 The court of appeals’ motions panel summarily denied Miller’s motion.22 The court then addressed the merits of The Star’s appeal, without analyzing whether it had jurisdiction, and it remanded the matter back to the trial court.23 On remand, the trial court once again ordered The Star to disclose the commenter’s identity.24 The Star once again appealed.25 Despite the motions panel previously denying Miller’s motion, and despite the court of appeals previously addressing the merits of The Star’s appeal (Miller I), the court of appeals addressed whether it had subject matter jurisdiction.26 The court looked to the Appellate Rules to determine whether it had jurisdiction.27 Appellate Rule 5(A)28 provides that the court of appeals has 17. Ind. Newspapers, Inc. v. Miller (Miller II), 980 N.E.2d 852, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), aff’d on reh’g, trans. granted, trans. vacated. 18. In re Ind. Newspapers, Inc. (Miller I), 963 N.E.2d 534, 538 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 19. Id. at 541. 20. Id. at 542. 21. Miller II, 980 N.E.2d at 855. 22. Id. 23. Miller I, 963 N.E.2d at 552-53. 24. Miller II, 980 N.E.2d at 855-56. 25. Id. at 856. 26. Id. 27. Id. at 857. 28. IND. R. APP. P. 5(A) (providing that “Appeals From Final Judgments. Except as provided in Rule 4, the Court of Appeals shall have jurisdiction in all appeals from Final Judgments of 972 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 47:969 jurisdiction in all appeals from final judgments.29 Appellate Rule 2(H) provides, in pertinent part, that a judgment is final if “the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial Rule 54(B) or Trial Rule 56(C) that there is no just reason for delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment.”30 Trial Rule 54(B) allows a trial court to “direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.”31 Alternatively, Appellate Rule 14(B) provides that upon a “motion by a party” an “appeal may be taken from other interlocutory orders if the trial court certifies its order and the court of appeals accepts jurisdiction over the appeal.” 32 The Star argued it could not appeal under Appellate Rule 2(H)(2) or 14(B)(1) because both rules refer to parties, and it was a non-party.33 Therefore, The Star argued it could appeal under Appellate Rule 2(H)(5), which provides that a judgment is final if “it is otherwise deemed final by law.”34 The court of appeals rejected this contention.35 It noted
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Petition for Certiorari
    No. 17-________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- TYSON TIMBS AND A 2012 LAND ROVER LR2, Petitioners, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Indiana Supreme Court --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DARPANA M. SHETH WESLEY P. H OTTOT* SAMUEL B. GEDGE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 10500 NE 8th Street, 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 1760 Suite 900 Bellevue, WA 98004 Arlington, VA 22203 (425) 646-9300 (703) 682-9320 [email protected] [email protected] *Counsel of Record [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Tyson Timbs and his 2012 Land Rover LR2. Respondent is the State of Indiana. Addi- tional plaintiffs before the trial court were the J.E.A.N. Team Drug Task Force, the Marion Police Department, and the Grant County Sheriff ’s Department. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2019 Magazine
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Ergo Law School Publications Summer 2019 Summer 2019 Magazine Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ergo Part of the Legal Education Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation "Summer 2019 Magazine" (2019). Ergo. 58. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ergo/58 This Magazine is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ergo by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RURAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE: SUPPORTING THE ERGO / SUMMER 2019 SMALL-TOWN JUDICIARY ACADEMY OF LAW ALUMNI FELLOWS INDUCTS FOUR IU MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW ALUMNI NEWS — SUMMER 2019 FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN DOCUMENTS HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT AT INDIANA LAW CONTENTS From the dean 2 Five-year review 4 A new look for new beginnings 10 Stewart Fellows program expanded 12 New book recounts law school history 14 Supporting the small-town judiciary 15 Academy inducts four alumni 16 Alumni summit planned for fall 2019 19 New board of visitors members elected 20 Austen L. Parrish Stout professorship first of its kind 22 Dean and James H. Rudy Professor of Law Donna M. Nagy Buxbaum elected to Hague Academy governing council 25 Executive Associate Dean and C. Ben Dutton Professor of Law Faculty chairs endowed 26 Andrea C. Havill Assistant Dean for External Affairs and Programs, colloquium honor Professor Bradley 27 Alumni Relations A fresh start 28 Kenneth L.
    [Show full text]
  • C. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission
    INDIANA STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES Back Row (Left to Right): Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Justice Brent E. Dickson Front Row (Left to Right): Justice Robert D. Rucker, Justice Theodore R. Boehm Cover Photograph by Richard Fields, Courtesy of Outdoor Indiana. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction . .2 II. Significant Events Of Fiscal Year 2001-2002 . .2-4 III. The Indiana Supreme Court . .4-6 A. Brief History . .4 B. The Case Work of The Indiana Supreme Court . .4 C. Biographies of The Justices . .5-6 IV. Budgetary Matters . .6 V. Activities Of The Affiliated Agencies And Divisions Of The Court . .6-24 A. Division of Supreme Court Administration . .6 B. Division of State Court Administration . .6 C. Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission . .14 D. Board of Law Examiners . .15 E. Commission For Continuing Legal Education . .17 F. Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications . .18 G.Indiana Judicial Conference/Indiana Judicial Center . .20 H.Indiana State Public Defender’s Office . .22 TOC I. Indiana Supreme Court Law Library . .22 J. Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program . .22 Appendix A—Statistical Analysis Fiscal 2001-2002 Case Inventories & Disposition Summary . A-2 Total Cases Disposed . .A-3 Majority Opinions and Published Orders . .A-3 Non-majority Appellate Opinions . .A-4 Certified Questions . .A-4 Rehearing Dispositions . .A-4 Capital Cases . .A-5 Petitions for Extension of Time & Miscellaneous Orders . .A-5 Disciplinary, Contempt and Related Matters . .A-6 Analysis of Supreme Court Dispositions . .A-7 Cases Pending as of June 30, 2002 . .A-8 Appendix B—Organizational Charts Indiana Judicial System Flow Chart .
    [Show full text]
  • Citation Matters: a Quick Guide to Correct Citation Form in Indiana by Prof
    WORDWISE Citation matters: a quick guide to correct citation form in Indiana By Prof. Joel M. Schumm egal citation is critical to provide use bold, Large and Small Caps, or Table 6 of the Bluebook provides courts with essential information other typefaces.2 a detailed list of abbreviations for many about your case. Incomplete or words that commonly appear in case Lincorrect citations may make it difficult 2. Indiana cases citations, such as Corp. (Corporation) or impossible to find the source. Sloppy Citation of a case should include the or N. (North[ern]). citations may also suggest carelessness name of the case, the Reporter and pages Geographic terms, like “State of” or that could lead some judges to be skep- on which it is located, and the court and City of,” should almost always be omitted. tical of other parts of a brief. The goal of year it was decided. For example: K.F. v. this short article is to provide some fairly St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., 909 2.2 Reporter and pinpoint basic but important information about N.E.2d 1063, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Indiana cases appear in the North- citations of the most common sources eastern reporter, currently N.E.3d. If in Indiana. 2.1 Abbreviating words referring to information taken from a Most Indiana court rules shed no Bluebook Rule 10.2.1 provides a specific page of the case, be sure to in- light on citation, but Appellate Rule 22 litany of rules for case names, which clude the pinpoint citation.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Download
    The History of the Indiana Trial Court System and Attempts at Renovation John G. Baker' Introduction Since the formation of Indiana as a territory to the present day, advocates of reform of Indiana's trial court system have enjoyed only limited and short-lived success. Throughout Indiana's history, advocates have addressed a number of issues; however, their goal of a single tier organization of trial courts and merit selection of all judges has proved elusive. This Article evaluates the history of the Indiana General Assembly's attempts to address the call for a more organized trial court system and judge selection process in Indiana. This history shows the general assembly's ambivalence in forgoing its control over parochial issues and its recalcitrance in surrendering control over not only the various dockets of the Indiana trial courts, but over the people who administer those dockets—the state's trial judges. As recently as 1986, the Indiana Judges Association advocated a series of reforms for the state's judicial system. 1 This proposal contained a number of changes which required legislative approval, but some required action only within the judicial branch itself. The 1986 proposal was based, in part, on the 2 recommendations advanced by the Indiana Judges Association in 1978. Specifically, the most recent suggestions championed were: 1) a unified, single- tier jurisdiction system of trial courts, 2) selection of all judges by a merit selection system, 3) total state funding of the court system, 4) improved judicial salaries, 5) improved court record keeping, and 6) reexamination of the change of venue and 3 change of judge rules.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures
    The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures The Vermont Public Interest Action Project Office of Career Services Vermont Law School Copyright © 2021 Vermont Law School Acknowledgement The 2021-2022 Guide to State Court Judicial Clerkship Procedures represents the contributions of several individuals and we would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their ideas and energy. We would like to acknowledge and thank the state court administrators, clerks, and other personnel for continuing to provide the information necessary to compile this volume. Likewise, the assistance of career services offices in several jurisdictions is also very much appreciated. Lastly, thank you to Elijah Gleason in our office for gathering and updating the information in this year’s Guide. Quite simply, the 2021-2022 Guide exists because of their efforts, and we are very appreciative of their work on this project. We have made every effort to verify the information that is contained herein, but judges and courts can, and do, alter application deadlines and materials. As a result, if you have any questions about the information listed, please confirm it directly with the individual court involved. It is likely that additional changes will occur in the coming months, which we will monitor and update in the Guide accordingly. We believe The 2021-2022 Guide represents a necessary tool for both career services professionals and law students considering judicial clerkships. We hope that it will prove useful and encourage other efforts to share information of use to all of us in the law school career services community.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Iowa
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 15–1661 Filed June 30, 2016 KELLI JO GRIFFIN, Appellant, vs. PAUL PATE, In His Official Capacities as the Secretary of State of Iowa, and DENISE FRAISE, In Her Official Capacities as the County Auditor of Lee County, Iowa, Appellees. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge. Claimant appeals district court ruling holding her drug conviction fell within the scope of “infamous crime” as used in article II, section 5 of the Iowa Constitution. AFFIRMED. Rita Bettis of ACLU of Iowa Foundation, Des Moines, and Julie A. Ebenstein and Dale E. Ho of ACLU Foundation, Inc., New York, New York, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General, Meghan L. Gavin, Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Short, Lee County Attorney, for appellee. Gary D. Dickey of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald. 2 Coty R. Montag, Washington, D.C., John B. Whiston of Clinical Law Programs, University of Iowa, Iowa City, until withdrawal, and then John S. Allen of Clinical Law Programs, University of Iowa, Iowa City, and Christina A. Swarns, Angel S. Harris, and Joshua A. Rosenthal, New York, New York, for amicus curiae The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. Alan R. Ostergren, Muscatine County Attorney, for amicus curiae Iowa County Attorneys Association. Mark McCormick of Belin McCormick, P.C., Des Moines, Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, New York, and Myrna Pérez of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, New York, New York, for amicus curiae The Iowa League of Women Voters.
    [Show full text]
  • INDIANA SUPREME COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005 Indiana’S Court of Last Resort: the Indiana State Supreme Court Front Row Left to Right: Justice Robert D
    INDIANA SUPREME COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2004-2005 Indiana’s court of last resort: the Indiana State Supreme Court Front Row Left to right: Justice Robert D. Rucker, Justice Theodore R. Boehm. Back Row Left to right: Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, Justice Brent E. Dickson The cover photograph depicts historical restoration work completed on the Supreme Court’s Courtroom ceiling in late summer 2004. This cover photo, as well as the others in the Annual Report, are by John Gentry. INTRODUCTION This Annual Report provides information about the work of the Indiana Supreme Court. Included with the statistical data is an overview of the significant events of fiscal year 2004-2005 (July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005) and a description of the activities of the Court and its affiliated agencies. Section II, Significant Events of Fiscal Year 2004-2005, includes brief highlights from the past fiscal year. Additional details on many of the programs listed in Section II can be found in the sections that follow. For more information about the Court, its history, and its various agencies and programs, visit our web site, www.IN.gov/judiciary. ■ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction . .1 H.Judicial Conference of Indiana /Indiana Judicial Center . .23 II. Significant Events of Fiscal Year 2004-2005 . .2 I. Indiana State Public Defender’s Office . .27 III. The Indiana Supreme Court . .6 J. Indiana Supreme Court Law Library . .27 A. Brief History . .6 K. Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program . .28 B. The Case Work of the Indiana Supreme Court . .6 Appendix –Statistical Analysis C.Biographies of the Justices .
    [Show full text]
  • Monroe Circuit Court
    2019 Annual Report Monroe Circuit Court MONROE CIRCUIT COURT DIVISIONS I - IX OFFICE OF COURT SERVICES MONROE COUNTY PROBATION SERVICES MONROE YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU PREPARED BY: Staff Office of Court Services Linda Brady Chief Probation Officer Victoria Thevenow Executive Director, YSB Table of Contents PERSONNEL ..................................................................................2 BOARD OF JUDGES ....................................................................6 OFFICE OF COURT SERVICES Introduction ..............................................................................21 Financial Management............................................................. .21 Security Management ...............................................................24 Jury Management .....................................................................24 Case Management .....................................................................25 Family Court .............................................................................29 Court Support Program .............................................................31 Appendix ................................................................................. 35 PROBATION Mission Statement ....................................................................... 47 Introduction ............................................................................. 48 Organizational Chart….........……….......................................56 Financial Information ...............................................................57
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ------
    No. _________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JANET L. HIMSEL, MARTIN RICHARD HIMSEL, ROBERT J. LANNON, AND SUSAN M. LANNON, Petitioners, v. 4/9 LIVESTOCK, LLC, CO-ALLIANCE. LLP, SAMUEL T. HIMSEL, CORY M. HIMSEL, CLINTON S. HIMSEL, and STATE OF INDIANA, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Court Of Appeals Of Indiana --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KATHERINE A. MEYER Counsel of Record Director HARVARD ANIMAL LAW AND POLICY CLINIC 1607 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 496-5145 [email protected] KIM E. FERRARO Senior Staff Attorney HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL 3951 N. Meridian, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317) 685-8800 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Does a state statute violate the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution when it provides com- plete immunity from nuisance and trespass liability for an industrial-scale hog facility newly sited next to long-standing family homes, even though
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    ORIGINAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Charles E. Justise Sr., Petitioner r FILED DEC 172018 I OFFICE OF THE CLERK LiEEME COURt U.S. David Liebel, Respondents, et al, Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Charles E. Justise Sr. DOC #921730 One Park Row Michigan City, IN 46360 VED 1 7019 M 1' QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18 allows a case with unrelated claims to be removed from state court to federal court, and, if so, the exceptions to permit such a move. Whether the Honorable Tonya Walton Pratt, and the Honorable Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, U.S. District Court Judges, were correct in stating that Justise can only proceed against one defendant in federal court, and that the entire case was not removed to federal court, or whether the Indiana Trial Court, the Honorable Tim Oates, Judge, and the Court of Appeal of Indiana were correct in stating that the case was removed to federal court. List of Parties All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: David Liebel, Religious Services Coordinator. Eva Talley Sanders, Deputy Jail Commander, Marion County Jail. Jerry Huston, supervisor of the law library at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Karen Richards, senior supervisor of all law libraries at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Marvin Haggler, a sergeant at the Marion County Jail.
    [Show full text]
  • Merit Selection in Indiana: the Foundation for a Fair and Impartial Appellate Judiciary
    MERIT SELECTION IN INDIANA: THE FOUNDATION FOR A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL APPELLATE JUDICIARY EDWARD W. NAJAM, JR.* INTRODUCTION Forty years ago the people of Indiana amended their constitution to provide for the merit selection and retention of appellate judges.1 After 120 years of partisan judicial elections, the amendment to article 7 of the Indiana Constitution was a significant, if not radical, departure. Under the Constitution of 1852, virtually all Indiana judges were elected on a partisan ballot, and appellate judges were swept in to office and out of office on political tides that had nothing to do with their judicial qualifications or performance. The Indiana Law Review has invited us to reflect upon Indiana’s forty years of experience with merit selection and to consider whether merit selection in practice has achieved its promise to remove appellate judges from partisan politics, to secure and retain able jurists, and to maintain a fair and impartial appellate judiciary. This Article will consider (1) the national judicial reform movement that led to Indiana’s revised Judicial Article, (2) the work of the Judicial Study Commission which recommended merit selection, (3) the debate in the Indiana General Assembly over adoption of the amendment to article 7 of the Indiana Constitution, (4) the campaign for ratification of the amendment, and (5) Indiana’s experience with merit selection, including a brief comparison with judicial elections in other states. The proper role of the courts has been an important topic since the earliest days of the republic. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville concluded, “Scarcely any question arises in the United States which does not become, sooner or later, a subject of judicial debate .
    [Show full text]