ELIZABETH M. HYDE- J.D., 2019, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law; B.A. 2011, Hanover College – Hanover, Indiana. “When you’re automatically registered to vote, that makes your life easier.” This remark came on the floor of the West Virginia Senate shortly before the Senate voted to pass an automatic voter registration bill. The speaker? […]More
Public Business is the Public’s Business: Koch’s Implications for Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act
COURTNEY ABSHIRE- J.D., 2019, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law; MPA 2016, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis – Indianapolis, Indiana; B.A. 2012, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis – Indianapolis, Indiana. In 2016, the Indiana Supreme Court faced the question of whether records requested pursuant to the Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”) could be withheld […]More
Justice Robert D. Rucker ended his decades-long legal career in 2017 with his retirement from the Indiana Supreme Court. Justice Rucker came to the supreme court after serving eight years as a judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals. His elevation to the supreme court in 1999 still stands as the most recent occasion a court of appeals judge was selected for Indiana’s highest court. (Prior to Justice Rucker, the most recent judge to hold that honor was Justice Donald Mote, who was elevated from what was then known as the Indiana Appellate Court in 1966 into the then-elected position of supreme court justice.)More
Earlier this year, a trial court in Indiana ordered IBM to post a $25 million appeal bond staying execution of a $78 million judgment. The litigation arose from IBM’s breach of a contract requiring it to automate much of Indiana’s welfare services. The amounts of both the judgment and appeal bond are perhaps extraordinary. Still, the IBM case highlights lessons for attorneys requesting stays in more commonplace civil cases.
This Article begins by explaining why a party would need to request an appeal bond and the requirements for doing so. It then addresses how courts determine the amount to fix for such a bond. It concludes by offering some practical considerations for both defendants (judgment-debtors) and plaintiffs (judgment-creditors).More
This Article responds to an article authored by John P. Gross, in which Professor Gross argues that representation by a public defender with an excessive caseload may be the defendant’s “best option.”More
In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court held that all criminal defendants facing serious criminal charges are entitled to the assistance of counsel, regardless of whether they can afford an attorney. In the years since Gideon, however, the provision of public defense to those who cannot afford counsel has fallen far short of the ideal expressed in Gideon that “every defendant stands equal before the law.” The failure of public defense systems to provide adequate representation to indigent defendants is often caused by severe underfunding and has resulted in the chronic appointment of “incompetent or inexperienced” counsel; delays in the appointment of counsel and discontinuity of attorney representation; a lack of training and oversight for counsel representing indigent defendants; excessive public defender caseloads and understaffing of public defender offices; inadequate or nonexistent expert and investigative resources for defense counsel; and a lack of meaningful attorney-client contact.
One response to these failings—as is often the case when constitutional violations are afoot—has been to challenge them in court. The focus of this short Article is on how the courts can address and have addressed the failings of underfunded and structurally flawed indigent defense systems. More specifically, it explores lawsuits that identify systemic failures—such as underfunding, excessive caseloads, and inadequate training and oversight—and seeks system-wide remedies capable of transforming the provision of defense services.More
Simultaneous Death and the Indiana Wrongful Death Statute: Resolving the Ambiguities of the Statute when the Order of Death is Ambiguous
by Jon Noyes (Attorney Profile) Wilson Kehoe Winingham LLC 2859 N. Meridian St. Indianapolis, IN 46208 (317) 920-6400 wkw.com [Editor’s Note: This is the second article Jon Noyes has written for the Indiana Law Review Blog. You can find his first article here.] Indiana’s adult wrongful death statutes group individuals into two categories: (1) adults who were […]More