Unique situation for Gov. Daniels

August 12, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Gov. Mitch Daniels might not make the most appointments to our state’s appellate courts while in office, but today he finds himself in a pretty interesting position. He’ll be only the second governor to have appointed someone to all three of Indiana’s appellate courts.

In 2007, he chose Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Cale Bradford, and Judge Elaine Brown in 2008. This year, he’ll select Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm’s replacement, as well as the next Indiana Tax Court judge. Judge Thomas Fisher announced he’s stepping down Jan. 1, 2011.

We’re currently waiting for his decision as to who the next justice will be. The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission selected Boone Circuit Judge Steven David, Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly, and Bingham McHale attorney Karl Mulvaney as finalists. Justice Boehm leaves the bench Sept. 30.

Now, Gov. Daniels will be able to leave his legacy on the state’s Tax Court, created in 1986. Judge Fisher has been the only judge to sit on that court. He was appointed by Gov. Robert Orr, the only other governor to have appointed someone to all three appellate courts. Two of his appointments are still on the Supreme Court: Justice Brent Dickson and Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

As far as current appellate judges, Daniels is beaten so far in the number of appointments made by Govs. Frank O’Bannon and Evan Bayh. The majority of appellate judges currently serving were appointed by them. But, there’s still plenty of time before Daniels’ term is up for some other judges to decide to step down.

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
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT