2 Indiana law school teams tops in SCOTUS challenge

June 21, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

These teams know their justices. An online competition among teams across the country has two teams from Indiana law schools in the Top 5.

The challenge is much like a “fantasy” sports game. Instead of choosing which players to start on your football or baseball team, those involved in the Bloomberg Law and SCOTUSblog’s Supreme Court Challenge made predictions for six merit cases and six petitions for certiorari that the high court considered in March.

Here’s a little more background. Teams of up to five students from a law school had to register by the end of February and make their picks by March 14.

Cash prizes await the top three teams, with bonuses if the team beats the experts at the SCOTUSblog. So far, six petitions for certiorari have been determined and three merit cases.

Right now, Bro Bono of Maurer School of Law and Team Katie Jo at Notre Dame Law School are 4th and 5th, respectively.

The top 3 teams are from St. Johns University School of Law, which currently holds the top two spots, and UCLA School of Law.

The high-profile same-sex marriage and Defense of Marriage Act cases, argued in March, await rulings, as does Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett.
 

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT