ILNews

3 names for the governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

 It's now up to Gov. Mitch Daniels to decide who will be the next Indiana Court of Appeals judge.

This afternoon, the Judicial Nominating Commission selected Marion Superior judges Cale Bradford and Robyn L. Moberly, and Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes as the final nominees to recommend to the governor. The selection came after the second round of interviews today, which had included six-semi-finalists. Twenty had originally applied and been interviewed.

Aside from the three selected, Marion Superior judges Cynthia Ayres and Kenneth Johnson, and Cass County deputy prosecutor Randall C. Head were interviewed today.

Of all the candidates, Judge Hughes made the most noticeable entrance as more than a dozen former law clerks attended his interview - something that he described as being "a surprise."

Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard asked each to take the initial seven to 10 minutes to describe three ideas on making the appellate court more efficient.

The applicants' suggestions overlapped on issues such as expanding the use of technology and "going paperless" at the appellate level to keep up with growing caseloads, case management techniques such as changing motions panel setups, increasing the number of arguments overall and those held in locations across the state, and creating special tracts to allow faster resolution of certain types of appeals.

By law, the governor must make an appointment within 60 days of the vacancy set for Aug. 1. The appointee will serve until the next general election following two years on the appellate bench, facing at that point a retention vote if he or she wishes to stay on the court.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT