ILNews

Longtime Bloomington attorney dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A Bloomington attorney with an eight-decade career in law died July 17 at the age of 99. Sylvan W. Tackitt practiced law in Bloomington since 1933.

The native Hoosier graduated from Indiana University School of Law in 1933 and began to practice with his mentor, attorney Robert Miller. Tackitt became Monroe County prosecutor in 1942. After his term as prosecutor, he went on to work defending Liberty Mutal. He retired in 1975 because he had developed heart problems and couldn't take contested cases, according to a 2005 Indiana Lawyer article. He continued to practice law after he retired from the position, handling wills, estates, and probate matters.

Tackitt was a member of the Monroe County, Indiana State, and American bar associations. He was active in the community, serving in his church and working with Monroe County non-profits and organizations.

In 2005, Tackitt received the 50-year award from the Indiana Bar Foundation. In April 2008, he received the Golden Barrister Award from Indiana University School of Law on his 75th graduation anniversary.

Tackitt is survived by his daughter, Martha Tackitt Distler; granddaughter, Michelle Tackitt Gordon; grandson, Schott W. Tackitt; sister, Bonita Tackitt Davis; five great-grandchildren; four nephews; one neice; and several grandnieces and grandnephews. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Bloomington Hospital Foundation, First Christian Church, or a charity of choice.
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