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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT