ILNews

Indiana chief justice getting national award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will receive a prestigious award from the American Judicature Society, recognizing his judicial excellence in the state.

On Wednesday, the chief justice will receive the sixth annual award named for Dwight D. Opperman, former chairman and chief executive officer of West Publishing Co. The national judicial organization announced in December that Chief Justice Shepard would receive the award, which honors state-level trial and appellate jurists for what's described as distinguished service on the bench.

A seventh-generation Hoosier and graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, Chief Justice Shepard started his judicial career in 1980 on the Vanderburgh Superior Court in Evansville. He joined the state Supreme Court in 1985, and then took the chief justice role 1987. He's authored more than 850 majority opinions in his time on the court and is recognized as a national authority on judicial ethics and legal professionalism, and has held leadership roles as president of the Conference of Chief Justices and the National Center for State Courts.

Indiana Court of Appeals Chief Judge John Baker nominated him, writing in his nomination letter that Chief Justice Shepard "makes those of us from Indiana proud to be Hoosiers."

Selecting the Indiana chief justice was a three-member panel including the Hon. Judith S. Kaye, former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals; California Court of Appeal Justice Ronald Robie for the Third Appellate District; and Judge Frederic Rodgers of the Gilpin Combined Courts in Colorado.

The chief justice receives his award at a lunchtime reception on the first day of the three-day spring judicial education conference that brings judges from across the state to Indianapolis.

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT