ILNews

Panel to choose appeals court semifinalists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Fourteen candidates for an Indiana Court of Appeals vacancy are being interviewed Wednesday, seven of whom are expected to make the initial cut this afternoon.

The Judicial Nominating Commission is meeting with the seven men and seven women who aspire to fill the vacancy that will occur when Judge Carr Darden retires from the 15-member court this summer.

The commission, chaired by Chief Justice Brent Dickson, is interviewing applicants from a district that includes Indianapolis and counties north. The district extends northwest to White County and northeast to Adams County.

Dickson opened each candidate’s 20-minute interview by asking them what they most admired about the court of appeals and what qualities they would bring if selected. The applicants include four judges, several attorneys who work in private practice, current and former prosecutors, public servants and academics.

Applicants were being interviewed in the following order: Marion Superior Judge Cynthia J. Ayers of Indianapolis; Jeffrey D. Wehmueller of Fishers; Ms. Carol Nemeth Joven of  Indianapolis; Bryce D. Owens of Pendleton; Abigail Lawlis Kuzma of Indianapolis; Brenda A. Roper of Indianapolis; Rebecca A. Trent of West Lafayette; Howard Superior Judge William C. Menges Jr., of Kokomo; Chris M. Teagle of Albany; Patricia Caress McMath of Indianapolis; Madison Circuit Judge Rudolph R. Pyle III of Anderson; Kari Evans Bennett of Noblesville; Joel M. Schumm of Indianapolis; and Marion Superior Judge Robert R. Altice Jr. of Indianapolis.

The commission will interview the seven semifinalists June 4-5. Three finalists then will be selected and their names forwarded to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who will make the appointment.


 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT