ILNews

Court sponsors Northwest Ordinance lecture

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is sponsoring a lecture celebrating the 221st anniversary of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the legal issues related to Indiana's southern borders established by the ordinance. The lecture will begin at 3 p.m. on July 14.

Seating in the Supreme Court's courtroom for "221 Years of Unsettled Borders: Indiana and the Northwest Ordinance" is no longer available for the free lecture, but a monitor and overflow seating will be available in the atrium area, as well as a live webcast.

The program, a part of the Indiana Supreme Court's Legal History Lecture Series, will begin with a brief discussion about the difficulty of documenting Indiana's southern border, the Ohio River, and then focus on a 1978 case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 that questioned the location of the boundary. The high court issued a decree in Kentucky v. Indiana, 474 U.S. 1 (1985), deciding both Indiana and Kentucky have concurrent jurisdiction over the Ohio River.

Donald Bogard, one of the lead attorneys on the case, who was chief counsel for then-Indiana Attorney General Ted Sendak, will be the primary speaker at the lecture.

The next lecture in the Legal History series will be Oct. 3, featuring Anderson University history professor Brian Dirck, author of the book, "Lincoln the Lawyer." Reservations for this event are now being accepted and can be made by e-mail at shachey@courts.state.in.us or (317) 232-2550.
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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT