IBJNews

Indiana trial courts got 1.6 million cases in 2012

 The Statehouse File
November 4, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state’s trial courts received 1.6 million new cases and held 1,338 civil and criminal jury trials last year, according to a new annual report.

The 2012 Indiana Judicial Service and Probation Report also found that more than 300,000 cases last year involved an individual who went to court without an attorney.

The courts release the document annually, along with the Supreme Court Annual Report. The courts also unveiled a new website Monday that allows users to compare data among counties and years.

“There are multiple volumes with more than 1,800 pages of information,” Justice Brent Dickson said in a written statement about the reports. “We have printed a limited number of hard copies and made all of the information available on our website.”

The reports provide details about court operations at the county and appellate level. Among the stats:

— The Supreme Court was asked to review 1,012 cases during fiscal year 2012-2013;

— 33,876 mortgage foreclosures were filed in the state;

— 11,325 Child In Need of Services – also called CHINS – cases were filed;

— An interpreter was used in 11,564 trial court cases;

— 5,900 cases statewide were referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution;

— 124,322 adults were under supervision by court probation departments.

The report also found that cities, towns, townships, counties and the state spent $386 million to operate the various levels of courts. Filing fees, court costs, user fees, and fines generated $205 million in revenue for the courts.

“We created the first report in 1976 with handwritten charts,” said Lilia Judson, executive director of Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration. “Today, we gather the information electronically and publish it online. This year, a new website allows users to compare data easily such as caseloads between counties.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Once a Marion Co. commuter tax is established, I'm moving my organization out of Indianapolis. Face it, with the advancement in technology, it's getting more cost effective to have people work out of their homes. The clock is running out on the need for much of the office space in Indianapolis. Establishing a commuter tax will only advance the hands of the clock and the residents of Indianapolis will be left to clean up the mess they created on their own, with much less resources.

  2. The 2013 YE financial indicates the City of Indianapolis has over $2 B in assets and net position of $362.7 M. All of these assets have been created and funded by taxpayers. In 2013 they took in $806 M in revenues. Again, all from tax payers. Think about this, Indianapolis takes in $800 M per year and they do not have enough money? The premise that government needs more money for services is false.

  3. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  4. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  5. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.

ADVERTISEMENT