Supreme Court Amends Appellate Rules

The Indiana Supreme Court made a minor change to the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure by adding whether an appeal involved an interlocutory appeal to the information required by the Notice of Appeal in Rule 9(F)(9). The order changing the rule also added an attorney's signature, printed name, and attorney number to the forms Appellee’s Notice of Appearance and Notice of Appearance (in Interlocutory appeals).

These changes will become effective by 2013, but adding them to the affected filings immediately will not violate any rule and would likely be helpful for the clerk’s office.

The changes are related to last year’s overhaul that replaced an Appellant’s Case Summary with a Notice of Appeal filed with the appellate clerk.

Judge Loretta Rush Selected as 108th Justice of Indiana Supreme Court

Governor Daniels announced this morning that Judge Loretta Rush is his selection for the 108th justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. Judge Rush is currently Tippecanoe Superior Court Judge, and she replaces Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr.

Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States

In the current issue of The Green Bag is a promising new resource: The Pronouncing Dictionary of the Supreme Court of the United States

Here’s the gist:

Drawing on a wide network of sources, including textbooks, usage or accounts or recordings by litigants or counsel, pronunciation guides, and daily journalism, we have undertaken to identify those cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that are most susceptible to mispronunciation and to determine the proper pronunciation.

HT to Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy.

And the Nominees Are … Judge Nation, Judge Rush, and Geoffrey Slaughter

Around 7:30 last night, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission announced it will soon nominate Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush, Hamilton Superior Judge Steve Nation, and Taft lawyer Geoffrey Slaughter to replace Justice Sullivan.

Rudy Pyle to replace Judge Darden on Indiana Court of Appeals

Governor Daniels announced this morning that Judge Rudolph Pyle will replace Judge Carr Darden on the Indiana Court of Appeals, according to the Indiana Lawyer.

Divided Michigan Supreme Court Considers What 14-point Type Means

Pardon me, but I can’t help stepping out of Indiana to give a little summary of our neighbor to the north’s fascinating study of typography. The question is whether a referendum petition met the requirement that the petition’s heading be PRINTED IN CAPITAL LETTERS IN 14-POINT BOLDFACE TYPE. The petitioners maintained that they used 14-point Calibri from Microsoft software.

I love typography, and I think the fact that the court stepped right into the middle of such a technical dispute is simply captivating. You might even say it appeals to me.

Chief Justice Mary Beth Kelly writes, “This appeal concerns a big constitutional issue, even though its focus is something as small as 14/72 of an inch. … We disagree with this interpretation and conclude that the type must measure 14 points, not the resulting printed letters. This is because the technical definition of “point” specifically denotes that point measures type size, which is the entire vertical length of the printer’s block. As explained, the technical meanings of “point” and “type” necessarily incorporate some amount of blank space so that the capital letters in 14-point type do not necessarily measure 14/72 of an inch. … because digital type and physical type are functional equivalents, they are measured in the same manner except in the instance of digital type; in that instance an invisible box, which replicates the printer’s block, is measured and is reflected by the font size selected.”

Chief Justice Kelly’s statements about whether the type size actually complied with the statute were not joined by another justice, but her conclusion that the type-size applies to the “type” not the “letters” (meaning a 14-point letter does not necessarily have to be 14/72 inches tall) was joined by two others (still a minority in Michigan’s seven-member court). A majority found that the submitted petition was sufficient—though for differing reasons—and should be certified.

Two justices (Young and Zahra) dissented from the author’s conclusions about whether the font complied, stating, “we do not believe that the evidence available to us is sufficiently clear for this Court to take judicial notice that Microsoft’s digital fonts replicate the point measure that the Legislature intended. Because digital fonts do not use physical printer’s blocks, it is not self-evident that the system of digital fonts accurately replicates the movable type point system. Plaintiff’s Calibri heading may well actually comply with the statutory 14-point type requirement. However, simply choosing a digital “size 14” font does not prove that it is equivalent to the 14-point type standard that the Legislature required when it enacted MCL 168.482. … If plaintiff can show that the digitized font system it used accurately replicates a 14-point sized type that the point system would have generated, then it would be entitled to have its petition certified as sufficient. … Because plaintiff has not proven the connection between its “size 14” font and the statutorily required 14-point type size, we do not believe that it is entitled to mandamus.”

Interestingly, the separate opinion includes a diagram of a printer’s block.

Three more justices (Cavanagh, Kelly, and Hathaway) concurred in the ultimate result but because they reasoned the font substantially complied with the statute.

Justice Stephen Markman dissented from the majority author’s conclusion that “type” meant the block rather than the letter as printed.

All told, there are sixty-two pages to the various opinions.

HT to Matthew Butterick, author of Typography for Lawyers (a must-have for every lawyer)

Ten Named as Semifinalists for Supreme Court Justice #108

Today the Judicial Nominating Commission named the following applicants as semifinalists to replace Justice Sullivan and become the 108th Hoosier to serve on the Indiana Supreme Court.

1.  Judge Cale Bradford, Indiana Court of Appeals
2. Judge Frances M. Gull, Allen Superior Court
3. Erin Reilly Lewis, IU Health
4. Ms. Andrielle M. Metzel, Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff
5. Judge Steven R. Nation, Hamilton Superior Court
6. Judge Loretta H. Rush, Tippecanoe Superior Court
7. Geoffrey Slaughter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
8. Judge Marianne L. Vorhees, Delaware Circuit Court
9. Judge Mary G. Willis, Henry Circuit Court
10. John P. Young, Young & Young

The Commission will meet with the semifinalists for a second round of interviews on August 8 and 9.

Justice Rucker to stand for retention

The Indiana Lawyer is reporting that Justice Rucker filed for retention today. This ends speculation (as recently as yesterday) that he would give Governor Daniels a fourth appointment to the Supreme Court. Governor Daniels appointed Justice David, Justice Massa, and will select the justice to replace Justice Sullivan later this summer.

Court of Appeals semifinalists

Here are the Court of Appeals semifinalists (five from a field of fourteen):

·        Abigail Lawlis Kuzma

·        Patricia Caress McMath

·        Hon. Rudolph R. Pyle, III

·        Joel M. Schumm

·        Hon. Robert R. Altice, Jr.

The second-round interviews are June 4–5. This is to replace Judge Darden, who has a mandatory retirement over the summer. You can find details from each interview here.

Nominating Commission Presents Governor Daniels with Nominees

According to the Indiana Law Blog, the Judicial Nominating Commission submitted this six-page letter to Governor Daniels yesterday.

Governor Daniels has until April 30 to name the next justice. Failing that, then-acting Chief Justice Dickson would select Chief Justice Shepard’s replacement under Article 7 Section 10 of Indiana’s Constitution.

Jane Seigel, Mark Massa, Cale Bradford to be Nominated to be 107th Justice of Indiana Supreme Court

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission has named Jane Seigel, Mark Massa, and Cale Bradford as the three nominees it will present to Governor Daniels. Once the Commission formally presents the names, which took a week or more in 2010 when Justice David was selected, the governor has sixty days to name one of them Shepard’s replacement. After that, the Commission, chaired by then-acting Chief Justice Dickson will select a Chief Justice from among the five justices.


Chief Justice Shepard’s term as chief justice ends March 4. After that, he would by rule be acting chief justice, but Justice Dickson, the next most senior justice, will take that role until the next permanent chief is selected from among the five sitting on the Court, including Shepard’s replacement. Shepard’s last day on the Court will be March 23.


HT: https://twitter.com/#!/incourts

Indiana Nominating Commission Names Semifinalists for the 107th Indiana Supreme Court Vacancy

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission has named seven applicants to interview a second time to replace Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard after he retires on March 4. This brings the Commission one step closer to a final list of three candidates to forward to Governor Daniels, who will name one of them as Shepard’s replacement. After that, the Commission, chaired by then-acting Chief Justice Dickson will select a Chief Justice from among the five justices.
Here are the semifinalists:

1. Hon. Robert R. Altice, Jr., Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 2
2. Hon. Cale J. Bradford, Indiana Court of Appeals
3. Hon. Maria D. Granger, Floyd Superior Court 3
4. Mr. Mark S. Massa, Indianapolis
5. Hon. Robyn L. Moberly, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 5 
6. Mr. Steven R. Schultz, Columbus
7. Ms. Jane A. Seigel, Indianapolis

The official press release is here: http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?fromdate=2/1/2012&todate=2/29/2012&display=Month&type=public&eventidn=51557&view=EventDetails&information_id=103369

7th Circuit Interprets Wal-Mart v. Dukes

Thomson Reuters reports on last week’s decision from the Seventh Circuit in Ross v. Charter One, a class-action suit by employees. The report’s catchy title is “7th Cir. to wage-and-hour defendants: No Dukes for you!”
HT Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog

Here is an excerpt from the article:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit just handed lawyers representing employees in wage-and-hour class actions potent protection against the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

The opinion came in a class-action suit filed in Chicago federal court against RBS Citizens, otherwise known as Charter One bank. Back in 2010, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow certified two classes, one of hourly workers and one of assistant branch managers, concluding that certification was appropriate for these narrowly-defined classes. The bank's lawyers at Proskauer Rose appealed. After oral arguments at the Seventh Circuit -- but before the appellate panel decided the case -- the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dukes. The Seventh Circuit then asked both sides for briefs on Dukes’s implications for the case. In the first appellate ruling to address Dukes’ application to wage-and-hour class actions, the Seventh Circuit affirmed class certification.

Seventh Circuit Clears the Way for Suit over Sports Scheduling

The Seventh Circuit yesterday reversed the dismissal of a case challenging the allegedly discriminatory scheduling of boys’ and girls’ sporting events in Indiana. Judge Tinder wrote the opinion on behalf of himself, Chief Judge Easterbrook, and Judge Wood. Judge Lawrence of the Southern District of Indiana authored the reversed decision.
Read the opinion,  Amber Parker v. Franklin Comm. Schools, here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=10-3595_002.pdf
Here is the Indianapolis Star’s coverage: http://www.indystar.com/article/20120201/SPORTS02/202010378/Court-overturns-dismissal-sports-gender-suit?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

Indiana Nominating Commission Names Applicants for the 107th Indiana Supreme Court Vacancy

From the Indiana Supreme Court’s website, here’s the list:

1. Hon. Robert R. Altice, Jr., Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division 2
2. Hon. Cynthia J. Ayers, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 4
3. Hon. Cale J. Bradford, Indiana Court of Appeals
4. Hon. Maria D. Granger, Floyd Superior Court 3
5. Mr. Mark S. Massa, Indianapolis
6. Ms. Patricia C. McMath, Indianapolis
7. Hon. Robyn L. Moberly, Marion Superior Court, Civil Division 5 
8. Mr. Karl L. Mulvaney, Indianapolis
9. Mr. Rory O’Bryan, Indianapolis
10. Hon. Michael N. Pagano, Lake Superior Court, County Division 3
11. Ms. Mary K. Reeder, Indianapolis
12. Mr. Steven R. Schultz, Columbus
13. Ms. Jane A. Seigel, Indianapolis
14. Mr. Les C. Shively, Evansville
15. Ms. Rebecca A. Trent, West Lafayette

This is less than half the number of applicants compared to the 34 who threw their name in the hat to replace Justice Boehm in 2010. Most of them are not repeats. The only three repeat applicants from 2010 are Judge Ayers and the two unsuccessful finalists, Judge Moberly and Karl Mulvaney.

The Commission will conduct interviews February 8 and 9, interview semi-finalists February 22, and then vote to send a list of three to Governor Daniels, who will have sixty days to select from the three (if he fails to do so, the Chief Justice, who will likely then be Justice Dickson as acting Chief Justice, makes the selection).


For more details, visit http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?fromdate=1/1/2012&todate=1/31/2012&display=Month&type=public&eventidn=51233&view=EventDetails&information_id=102721

Chief Justice Shepard's last State of the Judiciary focuses on Indiana’s past and future progress

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, in his last State of the Judiciary before his announced retirement on March 4, emphasized how far Indiana's judicial branch has come in the last three decades and how much promise its future holds. He highlighted several areas in which the judiciary has improved the quality and efficiency of its services, from halving the number of children awaiting court-appointed advocates to its appellate courts becoming a place other states turn for quality, in-depth legal analysis.

Watch Chief Justice Shepard's last State of the Judiciary

Here's the link: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/supreme/2465.htm
Watch it live at 2:00 p.m. today. This link will likely have a recorded version after the speech.