local rule in Indiana

2012In Spudich v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 745 N.E.2d 281, 285-86 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), a panel of this Court was confronted with whether a local rule permitting reply briefs conflicted with Trial Rule 56.

2012In Spudich v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co, 745 N.E.2d 281, 285-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), a panel of this Court was confronted with whether a local rule permitting reply briefs conflicted with Trial Rule 56.

2014They maintain that a local rule which attaches a condition to the application of a rule issued by the Indiana Supreme Court “is an impermissible ‘impingement thereon’.... ” Id. (quoting Armstrong, 447 N.E.2d at 1154 (quoting Lies v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 259 Ind. 192, 195 , 286 N.E.2d 170, 173 (1972))).

2014They maintain that a local rule which attaches a condition to the application of a rule issued by the Indiana Supreme Court “is an impermissible ‘impingement thereon’.... ” Id. (quoting Armstrong, 447 N.E.2d at 1154 (quoting Lies v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 259 Ind. 192, 195 , 286 N.E.2d 170, 173 (1972))).

2017Buckalew v. Buckalew, 754 N.E.2d 896, 898 (Ind. 2001).

2001See id. at 898 .

2014See also Lies v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 259 Ind. 192 , 286 N.E.2d 170, 173 (1972) (holding that a local rule requiring counsel to give a written “reminder” to the trial judge five days prior to the expiration of his time for ruling before moving to withdraw the case from that trial judge pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1 is in conflict with Trial Rule 53.1 because the local rule “purports to attach a condition to its application.”); In re the *648 Marriage of Murray, 460 N.E.2d 1028, 1027 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (holding that a local rule which required Trial Rule 12(B) motions to dismiss to be accom

2001See also Lies v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 259 Ind. 192 , 286 N.E.2d 170, 173 (1972) (holding that a local rule requiring counsel to give a written "reminder" to the trial judge five days prior to the expiration of his time for ruling before moving to withdraw the case *287 from that trial judge pursuant to Trial Rule 58.1 is in conflict with Trial Rule 58.1 because the local rule "purports to attach a condition to its application."); In re the Marriage of Murray, 460 NE.2d 1023, 1027 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (holding that a local rule which required Trial Rule 12(B) motions to dismiss to be accomp

2016Dep’t of Child Services, 917 N.E.2d 158, 164-165 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (observing, in a case involving the termination of parental rights, there was no evidence that the mother’s attorney informed the mother of her intent to withdraw as required by a local rule, that parents involved in termination proceedings have a right to counsel, and that the local rule’s requirement that a withdrawing attorney expressly inform her client in writing of her intent to withdraw protects that interest, and holding the trial court abused its discretion in granting the mother’s attorney’s motion to withdraw her app

2013Id.

2024Ass’n, 55 N.E.3d 906, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). [7] At issue is the meaning and application of a local rule promulgated by the Lake County judiciary.

2019Although Husband terminated his attorney, Husband was not provided ten-day notice of his attorney’s withdrawal as required by the local rule. 2 See Hess v. Hess, 679 N.E.2d 153 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (“Although we cannot say that Husband is wholly free from fault for his counsel’s withdrawal, we similarly cannot say that, in dissolution proceedings where emotions run high, attorney- client disagreement and conflict are unique.”).

2018Moreover, Judge Donahue “did not particularly care for ‘blind [i.e., open] pleas,’ but preferred to have the State and the defense decide an appropriate sentence . . . and present that determination to the [c]ourt for its acceptance or rejection.” Id. at 1181-82 (internal citations to trial record omitted).

2017“The local rule does not provide what amounts should be imposed for each specific fee.” De La Cruz v. State, 80 N.E.3d 210, 215 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-401 | October 4, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Ct. App. 2017).

2017“The local rule does not provide what amounts should be imposed for each specific fee.” De La Cruz v. State, 80 N.E.3d 210, 215 (Ind. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1703-CR-401 | October 4, 2017 Page 5 of 6 Ct. App. 2017).

2017See, e.g., Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688, 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.; see also South Bend Tribune v. South Bend Cmty. Sch.

2017See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. *1187 258, 269, 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (“[T]he chances of respondent’s being able to [prove an incompetently counseled guilty plea on remand] would appear slim” in view of the lower courts’ reliance on “the statement of the concurring judge in the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals that ‘[n]o lawyer in this State would have ever thought of objecting to the fact that Negroes did not serve on the Grand Jury in Tennessee in 1948.... ’ ”).

2017See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. *1187 258, 269, 93 S.Ct. 1602 , 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (“[T]he chances of respondent’s being able to [prove an incompetently counseled guilty plea on remand] would appear slim” in view of the lower courts’ reliance on “the statement of the concurring judge in the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals that ‘[n]o lawyer in this State would have ever thought of objecting to the fact that Negroes did not serve on the Grand Jury in Tennessee in 1948.... ’ ”).

2017“Indiana trial courts may establish local rules for their own governance as long as the local rules do not conflict with the rules established by the Indiana Supreme Court or by statute.” Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633, 645-646 (Ind. 2012); see also I.C. § 34-8-1-4 (“Other Indiana Courts may establish rules for their own government, supplementary to and not conflicting with the rules prescribed by the supreme court or any statute.”). " ’ De La Cruz contends that LR49-CR00-115 is invalid because it conflicts with Indiana Code Section -35-38-2-1(b).

2014As such, for the same reasons we reject his due process argument we reject his argument under the local rule. 7 N.E.2d at 425.

2014Dist. v. Chicago SouthShore and South Bend R.R., 685 N.E.2d 680, 695 (Ind.1997), and a local rule cannot override a statute, Pera, 987 N.E.2d at 1078 .

2014On the latter point, DCS is mistaken — because, again, subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by constitution or statute, Chicago South-Shore, 685 N.E.2d at 695 , and the Caseload Allocation Plan is a local rule that cannot override a contrary statutory provision, Pera, 987 N.E.2d at 1078 .

2014Freedom Fund, 959 N.E.2d 794, 800 (Ind.2011), reh’g denied, cert. denied. — U.S.-, 138 S.Ct. 218 , 184 L.Ed.2d 43 (2012)).

2010State v. Decatur Circuit Court, 247 Ind. 567 , 219 N.E.2d 898, 899 (1966).

2010State v. Decatur Circuit Court, 247 Ind. 567 , 219 N.E.2d 898, 899 (1966).

2005See In re Paternity of A.M.C., 758 N.E.2d 536, 539-40 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (holding that local rule which restricted the filing of a petition for modification of custody, support or spousal maintenance unless one year had elapsed from the last order or an extreme emergency is shown was in conflict with modification statute and was unenforceable).

2005See In re Paternity of A.M.C., 758 N.E.2d 536, 539-40 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (holding that local rule which restricted the filing of a petition for modification of custody, support or spousal maintenance unless one year had elapsed from the last order or an extreme emergency is shown was in conflict with modification statute and was unenforceable).