ILNews

Grant Superior judge steps aside

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


A Grant County judge's illness has forced him from the bench temporarily, and the Indiana Supreme Court has appointed a deputy prosecutor from Marion as judge pro tempore.

Grant Superior 2 Judge Randall Lee Johnson filed a petition in mid-April that notified the state's highest court that he was unable to perform the Superior 2 duties because of illness. While details of his illness aren't outlined by the Supreme Court, Judge Johnson has been experiencing health problems for more than a year because of a mold-infestation in the historic county courthouse.

In mid-2008, the Indiana State Department of Health found mold and mildew problems in the court complex. The county relocated both Superior 2 and the juvenile court to the county office complex, and Judge Johnson had been working from home and hearing cases despite his health issues related to the mold.

Other court employees have also had health problems and the judge had temporarily closed the court in the past. County officials are still in the process of finalizing repairs or renovations for the Superior 2 location.

Judge Johnson took the bench in 2001, and his current term is set to expire at the end of 2012. Under Trial Rule 63 (B) (1), the Supreme Court granted his petition and named Marion attorney Dana Kenworthy as judge pro tempore. The high court's public information officer described that as a rare move, having to appoint a judge pro temp because of an ill-stricken judge.

A 2001 graduate of Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis, Kenworthy has been a Grant County deputy prosecutor since 2001. Aside from those fulltime prosecutor duties, Kenworthy has also received recognition and awards, including the Randall T. Shepard Award for her pro bono work. She served four years as the county's pro bono committee chair and continues serving District 6, while also working to set up a mediation program for that local legal community.

The Indiana Supreme Court has not indicated how long Kenworthy will serve in that role, but her appointment began April 19 and her service remains in effect until the court orders otherwise.

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