1994 Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Old Lessons Revisited and the Scope of the Court Appeals' Discretion
![handle is hein.journals/indilr28 and id is 995 raw text is: 1994 DEVELOPMENTS IN
INDIANA APPELLATE PROCEDURE:
OLD LESSONS REVISITED AND THE
SCOPE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS' DISCRETION
WILLIAM 0. HARRINGTON*
INTRODUCTION
During 1994, Indiana appellate practice stayed its course. The Indiana Rules of
Appellate Procedure received only minor amendments. The reported decisions from
Indiana's appellate courts more often reminded appellate practitioners of the old but
critical lessons that attend careful appellate practice, and only occasionally developed new
law. The most interesting development in the case law relates to a vigorous debate among
three districts of the Indiana Court of Appeals regarding the extent of the appellate courts'
inherent authority to entertain appeals from administrative agency decisions wherein the
appellant fails to include an assignment of errors in the record of proceedings.'
The composition of Indiana's appellate tribunals continues to evolve. However, at
least in 1994, the case law did not offer much new guidance to the appellate practitioner.
As it turns out, 1994 was an important year to revisit the lessons of the past. With so
many potential developments looming on the horizon, it is perhaps best that 1994 was a
year to stand relatively still and think critically about the current status of appellate
procedure in Indiana.
Part I of this Article discusses briefly the minor amendments to the Indiana Rules of
Appellate Procedure in 1994. Part II analyzes the decisions of Indiana's appellate courts
in 1994 which revisit and emphasize the old lessons of appellate practice. Part III
examines the debate regarding the significance of failing to make an assignment of errors
and the larger implications of that debate. Part IV discusses what may lie ahead in 1995.
I. AMENDMENTS TO THE
INDIANA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
The Indiana Supreme Court made only minor changes to the Indiana Rules of
Appellate Procedure in 1994. Most of the amendments that became effective in 1994
were thoroughly reviewed in last year's Survey article on Indiana Appellate Procedure.'
* Associate, Lewis & Wagner, Indianapolis. A.B., cum laude, 1985, Wabash College; J.D., cum
laude, 1989, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington.
1. St. Amand-Zion v. Review Bd. of Ind., 635 N.E.2d 184, 185 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that the
[flailure to file the assignment of errors must result in dismissal for lack ofjurisdiction.'); Claywell v. Review
Bd. of Ind., 635 N.E.2d 181, 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), aff'd, 643 N.E.2d 330 (Ind. 1994) (holding that [t]he
timely filing with this court of an assignment of errors... is a jurisdictional act.); Hogan v. Review Bd. of Ind.,
635 N.E.2d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (holding that the requirement of filing an assignment of errors has
been abolished).
2. George T. Patton, Jr., 1993 Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Changes in
OriginalActions, Rehearing and Transfer, 27 IND. L. REv. 843, 844-53 (1994) (discussing the amendments to
the rules regarding original actions, petitions for rehearing and transfer, interlocutory appeals from the Tax
Court, and shorter statements of the case).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/indilr28&div=52&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
1994 Developments in Indiana Appellate Procedure: Old Lessons Revisited and the Scope of the Court Appeals' Discretion
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most