ILNews

Darden retirement ceremony July 25

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals will celebrate Judge Carr Darden’s 18 years of service at a retirement ceremony July 25. Darden is leaving the court because will turn 75 Saturday, the age of mandatory retirement. He will continue to serve as a senior judge.

Darden told then-Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Gov. Mitch Daniels in January that he planned to retire on his 75th birthday. He joined the court in November 1994, appointed by Gov. Evan Bayh. Prior to becoming an appellate judge, Darden was a judge in Marion County.

The Tennessee native and U.S. Air Force veteran graduated from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in 1970. Before becoming a judge, he worked as a Marion County and state public defender.

Darden told the Indiana Lawyer  in January that he would have continued to serve as a Court of Appeals judge if he were not required to retire.

“It’s hard to leave the best job in the world, but you know, I hope I can say it was a job well done,” Darden said in a release from the court. “I can definitely say I worked with a lot of great people and I’ll be happy to keep doing that as a senior judge.”

Darden is the second African-American to serve on the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Chief Judge Margret Robb will preside over Darden’s retirement ceremony, which begins at 10 a.m. in the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. The ceremony is invitation only, but will be webcast live.

“Judge Darden is an esteemed colleague, a trusted friend and a delightful man,” Robb said. “He’s served our state with distinction and all of us here at the court extend our warmest congratulations and best wishes to him and to Mrs. Darden.”  

Gov. Mitch Daniels has yet to select Darden’s successor. The finalists for the position are Marion Superior Judge Robert Altice Jr., public defender Patricia Caress McMath, and Madison Circuit Judge Rudolph Pyle III. The governor has until Aug. 11 to 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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT