ILNews

Senior judge roster grows larger

Michael W. Hoskins
January 9, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana now may have more senior judges than ever before.

The number of trial judges who retired or left the bench at the end of 2008 was at the highest level in recent memory, and many have opted to continue their judicial services in a part-time capacity. That's pushed the senior judge roster to a record level, Indiana Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said.

A total of 108 jurists are on the roster, which is about 30 more than were listed a year ago, according to Dolan. The state's highest court issued an order at year's end that appointed new senior judges and allows others to continue in that role for 2009, specifying the courts where they can serve. Five serve at the appellate level.

This year marks the 20th that senior judging is allowed in Indiana, after lawmakers authorized the senior judge department in 1989 under the Supreme Court's control. The goal has been to use the services of retired or former judges to supplement existing judicial resources, whether it's in the absence of a regular judge, to complement a colleague's work, or to take on certain cases or programs.

The court is allowed to appoint new senior judges anytime throughout the year and can adjust the list as needed.

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. 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?

  4. 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"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT