ILNews

Darden retires, announces McKinney scholarship

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Court of Appeals Judge Carr L. Darden will establish a scholarship in the name of himself and his wife of 57 years at his alma mater, the Indiana University McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis. The judge and other officials announced the scholarship Wednesday during his Statehouse retirement ceremony.

When fully endowed, The Judge Carr L. Darden and Mrs. Lundy Darden Public Sector Legal Education Scholarship will be awarded to McKinney students who have demonstrated an interest in state and local government and pursuing a career in public service. Details about the projected endowment and when the scholarship may be available were not immediately available Wednesday.

Darden said he hoped that the scholarship might in a small way help students from diverse backgrounds who want to use their legal education to serve the public. He told a packed Supreme Court gallery that each of them had encountered someone in their lives who extended a helping hand.

“We have to prepare the way for the next generation that will follow us,” said Darden, who upon turning 75 reached the statutory age of retirement for judges.

Darden said the scholarship would help defray some of the costs of law school for students who want to enter public fields of the profession that typically pay less than private practice. The scholarship also represented a way for him to give back.

“My wife and I have been given so much,” he said.

Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed said the Marion County Bar Association was a sponsor of the scholarship and would assist in raising money for it. The MCBA will host a fundraising dinner in Darden’s honor Sept. 14 at the downtown Indianapolis Marriott, 350 W. Maryland St.

Court of Appeals Chief Judge Margret Robb said Darden’s fellow judges on the court had made contributions to the scholarship fund as his parting gift from the court.

Robb also announced that the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Opportunity summer intern program that promotes diversity in the profession would henceforth be known as the Carr L. Darden CLEO summer intern program.

Darden, a former Marion Superior Court judge and chief deputy state public defender, was appointed to the Court of Appeals by Gov. Evan Bayh in 1994. He will continue to serve as a senior judge.

Gov. Mitch Daniels has until Aug. 11 to name Darden’s replacement from three candidates selected in June by the Judicial Nominating Commission. They are Marion Superior Judge Robert Altice Jr., public defender Patricia Caress McMath, and Madison Circuit Judge Rudolph Pyle III.

 

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT