Products and Services

Amicus Committee

Amicus Committee

The Amicus Committee of the IndyBar Appellate Practice Section monitors and reports on pending litigation or appeals that may affect appellate practitioners or appellate practice in Indiana. The Amicus Committee also considers requests for the section to participate as amicus in appeals that involve matters of Indiana procedure.

Depending on the issue or issues involved, the IndyBar Appellate Section will consider filing amicus briefs jointly with other sections of the IndyBar where appropriate. If you have questions or would like to submit a request for consideration, please fill out this brief form. Please also help spread the word so that the IndyBar Appellate Practice Section may become involved in appropriate and significant matters affecting Indiana appellate practitioners. Please reach out to Josh Tatum if you have any questions.

Appeals in which the Amicus Committee of the IndyBar Appellate Section submitted amicus briefs:

IBM v. State of Indiana
On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals interpreted a statute on post-judgment interest as entitling IBM to $12.7 million dollars of interest from the original judgment in 2012. The Appellate Practice Section appeared as amicus curiae to ask the Indiana Supreme Court to accept
transfer and provide guidance on the applicability of post-judgment interest in circumstances like this. Click here to view the brief.

Matter of the Civil Commitment of A.M., A.M. v. Community Health Network
A party presented unpublished memorandum opinions to the court, and the court cited the unpublished memorandum opinions in its decision. The Appellate Practice Section appeared as amicus curiae to ask the Indiana Supreme Court to accept
transfer and provide guidance on the interplay between an appellate attorney’s duties of candor, competence, diligence and prohibition in Appellate Rule 65 of citing unpublished memorandum opinions for precedent and additionally, what applicability Rule 65 has to courts themselves. Click here to view the brief.

First American Title Insurance Co. v. Robertson
The Appellate Practice Section’s brief asked the Supreme Court to grant transfer to resolve the mixed guidance from previous decisions and to “provide guidance for the bench and bar alike” for the countless proceeding governed by AOPA. The section did not take a position on the merits of the appeal beyond the procedural questions. The Court granted transfer and provided the sought-after guidance. Click here to view the brief.

Drake v. Dickey
Click here to view the brief. In this brief, the Appellate Practice Section  urges the Supreme Court to accept transfer and provide guidance regarding whether an appellee who prevailed in the trial court below and does not seek reversal of the judgment must nevertheless file a cross-appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 9(D) in order to preserve alternative theories for affirming the trial court’s judgment. The Appellate Practice Section believes that a cross-appeal is unnecessary in such circumstances, but the Court of Appeals took a different view in Drake v. Dickey, 2 N.E.3d 30, 32 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), reh’g denied (2014). The Supreme Court has granted the Appellate Practice Section’s Motion to Appear as an Amicus Curiae in this case and accepted the Amicus Brief for filing. The Court of Appeals’ opinion from which the Appellate Practice Section seeks transfer can be found here.

Malenchik v. State
Joel M. Schumm, IU School of Law–Indianapolis, Bryan H. Babb, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, James J. Bell, Bingham McHale, LLP, Fred R. Biesecker, Ice Miller LLP, Carol A. Nemeth, Price Waicukauski & Riley LLC, and Geoffrey G. Slaughter, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, as attorneys for Amicus Curiae Indianapolis Bar Association, Criminal Justice and Appellate Practice Sections submitted an amicus appellate brief in Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564, 566 (Ind. 2010). In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court held that legitimate offender assessment instruments do not replace, but may inform a trial court's sentencing determinations. The court affirmed the defendant’s sentence because the trial court's consideration of the defendant's assessment model scores was only supplemental to other sentencing evidence that independently supported the sentence imposed. Click here to view the brief.

Filip v. Block
Paul L. Jefferson, Bryan H. Babb, Geoffrey G. Slaughter, Jana K. Strain, and Kent D. Zepick, Indianapolis, IN, as attorneys for Amicus Curiae Indianapolis Bar Association Appellate Practice Section submitted an amicus appellate brief in Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076, 1078 (Ind. 2008). In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the designation of evidence required under Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) may be accomplished in any one of several places, but must be done consistently. The court concluded that a trial court may resolve any inconsistencies in designations against the designating party. Finally, the court held that the statute of limitations for negligence claims against an insurance agent for failure to obtain a desired form of coverage begins to run at the time the failure was first discoverable through ordinary diligence. Click here to view the brief.

In re: Indiana Newspapers Inc.
The Amicus Committee of the Indianapolis Bar Association’s Appellate Practice Section filed an amicus curiae brief Monday, February 18, 2013, in the matter of In re: Indiana Newspapers, Inc. The amicus brief urges the Indiana Supreme Court to accept transfer and resolve an unsettled question of appellate procedure regarding whether a discovery order compelling a non-party to produce documents or information is appealable as a matter of right. To view the brief, click here.

DID YOU KNOW?

Indianapolis Bar Association (IndyBar) est. 1878 | 4,536 Members (as of 2.11.21)