ILNews

3 remain in running for Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two trial judges and an appellate attorney have emerged as finalists for the Indiana Supreme Court, but one those three almost didn’t make it to Indianapolis for the second interview on Friday.

Story continues below


After nearly five hours of interviews and nearly two hours of deliberation, the seven-member Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission on Friday selected Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Indianapolis attorney Karl Mulvaney as finalists for the high court opening.

But Judge David almost didn’t make it to Indianapolis that day.

“I thought I’d be stuck on the side of the road when I was supposed to be sitting there in front of the commission,” Judge David told Indiana Lawyer today, laughing about his car trouble late last week that almost interfered with the appellate interview.

Getting behind the wheel that morning, the judge said he discovered a squirrel had eaten through some of the wiring and he ended up driving on four out of eight engine cylinders and with no air conditioning.

“A squirrel attempted to sabotage my bid,” he said. “Of all the worst possible days for car problems, it happens then. I barely made it down there, and barely made it back.”

He was the first interview, starting at 8:45 a.m. The remaining eight semi-finalists appeared for their 30-minute interviews throughout the day, before the commission members met privately at 3 p.m. to deliberate. After two hours of discussion, the members publicly announced their decision about 5 p.m.

Judge David got the news as he was standing in the auto repair shop, listening to the mechanic explain what had happened and what it would cost. He stepped away from the counter to take the news about his being chosen as a finalist for the state’s highest court.

“I’m simply honored and humbled, and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was excited,” the judge said. “You have to be impressed with the process and the openness of it all.”

The other two finalists echoed those thoughts, with Mulvaney and Judge Moberly also expressing their excitement about the process overall and being selected as finalists. Judge Moberly talked about feeling very comfortable during her second interview, though it went by very quickly because of the “fun mix of commission members who are warm and engaging people.”

"I can't imagine ever being better," Judge Moberly said after receiving the news on Friday. “I'm thrilled and humbled to be one of the three finalists being sent to the governor.”

Now, it’s up to Gov. Mitch Daniels to decide who’ll be the next Indiana Supreme Court justice. Whoever is chosen will be the Republican governor’s first appointment to the state’s highest court, the first new justice since 1999, and he or she will succeed Justice Theodore R. Boehm once he retires from the bench Sept. 30.

Aside from the three finalists, those who made it past the first round of cuts were: Indianapolis attorney Ellen Boshkoff with Baker & Daniels; Indiana University associate general counsel Kipley Drew; Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes; Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher; Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation; and State Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford.

Each person began their interview with a congratulatory welcome from Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who chairs the commission. He then asked each semi-finalist to address a two-part question sent out by the commission: "What do you consider your finest professional accomplishment or contribution?" and "Name two things that need improving in the Indiana court system that a justice might help solve."

All raised points about what they might tackle if they were a member of the court, and then responded to other questions posed by commission members – their views on approaching issues of first impression, how they might complement the current court makeup, what the judiciary’s three most pressing issues are, and how justices should factor in political, economic, and social ramifications in decision making.

A full rundown of the interviews by all nine semi-finalists can be found at Indiana Lawyer’s blog, First Impressions.

The governor’s general counsel, David Pippen, said the 60-day clock begins ticking once Daniels receives an official evaluation report on the three finalists from the nominating commission; that’s expected this week. Interviews will likely be scheduled “pretty quickly,” and there’s really no set procedure for how that interview process will happen. Whether one interview will take place or finalists will be invited back for a second informal interview hasn’t been determined, but it will be up to the governor to decide. Pippen said he doesn’t expect the governor will come close to running the 60-day deadline, but if Daniels doesn’t meet that deadline, the chief justice would make an appointment from the same list.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT