ILNews

Former St. Joseph Superior judge dies

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judge William T. Means, a former judge on the St. Joseph Superior Court for more than two decades, died Oct. 21 at the age 80.

Judge Means retired from the bench in September 2008. He had fallen ill shortly before his retirement and was in and out of the hospital or rehabilitation centers until his death, said St. Joseph Circuit Judge Michael Gotsch. Gotsch, who appeared numerous times in Judge Means' courtroom as an attorney before joining the bench, said it was a pleasure to try a case in front of Judge Means.

"I feel he was the best judge to try a case in front of because he was very gracious and didn't intervene in your case or interfere in how you wanted to present your case," he said.

St. Joseph Superior Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis agreed, saying Judge Means had an excellent demeanor for a judge. He was always calm and respectful to everyone in his courtroom, no matter what happened in court or if someone misbehaved.

Judge Means earned his J.D. from the University of Michigan in 1953 and was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1955. Prior to joining the bench in the mid 1980s, he was city attorney for Mishawaka, worked as Republican Party chair, was head of the license branch for the Republican Party, and worked in private practice.

Judge Means earned his bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California in 1950. He was active in local theater.

Judge Means was a member of the St. Joseph County and Indiana State Bar associations, as well as Michigan Alumni Club, Mishawaka Republican Party, Presbyterian Players, and First United Methodist Church of Mishawaka.

He is survived by his daughters Margaret Means (William Bergerson) and Rachel Means (Eric Grant); a granddaughter; and sister Marilyn Copeland. He was preceded in death by his wife, Francianne Ivick.

The family will receive friends from 4 to 8 p.m. Thursday at Bubb Funeral Chapel, 3910 N. Main St., Mishawaka. A memorial service will be held at the chapel at 11 a.m. on Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT