ILBlogs

First Impressions
Jennifer Mehalik
More First Impressions

Recent Blog Posts

Prosecutor misconduct cases

Jennifer Mehalik
March 6, 2009
Comments(0)
For those current and aspiring prosecuting attorneys out there, read two of today’s Court of Appeals opinions to learn what not to do while at trial. The appellate court dealt with two cases of prosecutorial misconduct but found both were harmless...
More

Update on lawyers leaving law

Jennifer Mehalik
March 4, 2009
Comments(0)
I wrote a post a few weeks back that said 75 percent of respondents to our online poll at that time said they had considered leaving the practice. After two more days of voting, the number went down to 65 percent....
More

Racing star\'s trial begins

Jennifer Mehalik
March 2, 2009
Comments(0)
Helio, what were you thinking? You are a high-profile guy thanks to your wins at the Indianapolis 500 and disco ball trophy from “Dancing with the Stars.” Did you think you and your attorney’s attempts at tax evasion wouldn’t get caught,...
More

Tuning out layoff news?

Jennifer Mehalik
February 27, 2009
Comments(0)
If you read any publication geared toward the legal community, you’ve undoubtedly encountered numerous news stories about law firm layoffs. It’s a topic we’ve covered both in IL and here in the blog and one that should be talked about. The...
More

Study results no surprise

Jennifer Mehalik
February 25, 2009
Comments(0)
The National Association for Law Placement has issued a report that confirms what most law students already know: student recruiting slowed last year as a result of the economy. I won’t go over all the details of the report here; you...
More

2009 bills update

Jennifer Mehalik
February 23, 2009
Comments(0)
This is do-or-die week for some bills in the legislature. The third reading deadline is Wednesday and those that don’t make it out in their current form will die. A few will be folded into other bills in an attempt to...
More

1982 case shows election issue

Jennifer Mehalik
February 19, 2009
Comment(1)
As lawyers, you understand the legal nuances and issues in cases that appear before our appellate courts. The general public often does not. They don’t understand why convictions are overturned or cases are remanded for retrial. Now imagine the power the...
More

Sneaky vote at Statehouse

Jennifer Mehalik
February 17, 2009
Comments(0)
We think the election of Indiana’s Supreme Court justices is a pretty big deal, so we’ve been closely watching House Joint Resolution 9, which proposes that we do away with the merit selection and retention system. So imagine our surprise today...
More
Page  << 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT