ILNews

Longtime Lake Superior judge dies at 78

IL Staff
January 10, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lake Superior Judge Gerald N. Svetanoff, 78, died Wednesday. Svetanoff was the longest-serving Lake Superior judge at the time of his death.

Svetanoff was appointed to the bench in 1981 by Gov. Robert D. Orr. He was presiding over Lake Superior Civil Division 4 when he petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint a judge pro tem “while he is unable to attend to the duties of his office” due to an illness, according to the Sept. 17 order.

Svetanoff was highly respected by attorneys who practiced before him and his fellow judges. His successes inspired his son, Joseph Svetanoff, to become a lawyer. Svetanoff was admitted to the bar in 1960 and was a law clerk to the Indiana Supreme Court. He entered private practice in Gary and also served as a judge pro tem in the Superior Court, County Division, in Crown Point.

He was a graduate of the Indiana Judicial College and belonged to many legal organizations, including the Lake County Bar Association.

Svetanoff was a lifelong resident of northwestern Indiana. He was born in Gary and attended Lew Wallace High School. He earned his degrees from Indiana University School of Business and the law school in Bloomington.

He is survived by his wife, Linda; son Joseph (Cathy); and grandchildren Natalia and Alexander.

Visitation is from 2 to 8 p.m. Sunday at Burns Funeral Home, 10101 Broadway, Crown Point. A short memorial service is at 7 p.m. Sunday. The funeral service will be at 10 a.m. Monday at the funeral home, with burial directly following the service at Calumet Park Cemetery, 2305 W. 73rd Ave., Merrillville.
 

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