ILNews

District Court program to look at Cypriot Mosaics case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This year’s Court History and Continuing Legal Education Symposium in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana will focus on one of the “most publicized and fascinating cases to come before the court in recent memory,” according to the District Court.

Sally Zweig, John Hoover and Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Ezra Friedlander, all who participated in the case as attorneys, will speak about their experiences Nov. 22 at “From Cyprus to Indy and the Judge in Between: The Cypriot Mosaics Case and Judge James E. Noland.” Retired Magistrate Judge Kennard P. Foster, who served as magistrate on the 1989 case, Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg & Feldman Fine Arts Inc., will make remarks about it from his perspective.

The case involved a collection of 6th-Century mosaics that had been stolen from a church in Cyprus in the late 1970s and subsequently sold to a Carmel, Ind. art dealer. The ensuing litigation left Judge James E. Noland to grapple with issues of which, if any, foreign government had standing in the case; whether Indiana state law or Swiss law applied; if the claimants had practiced due diligence; and what guidelines, if any, he should recommend be used by future buyers of international artwork subject to American law.

The final hour will feature a roundtable discussion about the life and career of Noland, with 7th Circuit Judge John D. Tinder moderating the panel consisting of U.S. Judges Sarah Evans Barker and Larry J. McKinney and assistant U.S. attorney Jill Julian, a former law clerk to Noland.

Registration is $50 for non-members of the court’s Historical Society; members of the Historical Society receive a complimentary registration. Space is limited. It will be held from 1 to 4:30 p.m. in the Hon. S. Hugh Dillin Memorial courtroom, Room 243, in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio St., Indianapolis.

RSVP by Nov. 15 to Denise Fort at denise.fort@faegrebd.com. For more information, contact Doria Lynch at Doria_Lynch@insd.uscourts.gov or 317-229-3729.
 

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT