ILNews

Finalists selected for St. Joseph Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Editor's note: This story has been corrected.

Two attorneys in private practice and three public servants are finalists for an upcoming vacancy in St. Joseph Superior Court.

The St. Joseph County Judicial Nominating Commission on Friday interviewed 13 candidates and narrowed the list to these five finalists: Mary Catherine Andres, St. Joseph deputy prosecuting attorney; attorney Scott Duerring of Duerring Law Offices in South Bend; Andre B. Gammage, managing partner at Berger & Gammage in South Bend; St. Joseph Circuit Court Magistrate Elizabeth C. Hurley; and Jeffrey Lane Sanford, deputy public defender for St. Joseph County and deputy city attorney in South Bend.

Gov. Mike Pence will select the judge within 60 days of his formal notification of the finalists. The vacancy will be created when St. Joseph Superior Judge Roland W. Chamblee, Jr., retires on March 31.

“The Commission members were impressed by the high quality of all of the applicants,” said Indiana Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa, who chairs the commission.  “The five individuals we are recommending to Governor Pence represent the best of an impressive pool of talent.”

Others who interviewed for the vacancy are: Edward P. Benchik of Shedlak & Benchik Law Firm LLP in South Bend; Elkhart County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David L. Francisco; Mark James of Anderson Agostino & Keller P.C. in South Bend; solo practitioner Jeffrey E. Kimmell of South Bend; solo practitioner Mark Kopinski of South Bend; Andrew Straw of Andrew Straw Esq. in Mishawaka; John P. Tuskey of Bingham and Loughlin P.C. in Mishawaka; and Stanley F. Wruble III of Wruble & Associates in South Bend.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT