ILNews

Former appellate court judge dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Hon. Robert H. Staton, who was an Indiana appeals court judge for nearly 30 years, died July 18. He was 86.

Services will be in Indianapolis at 1 p.m. July 25 at Second Presbyterian Church, 7700 N. Meridian St., with visitation from 4 to 8 p.m. July 24 at Leppert Mortuary, 740 E. 86th St.

Judge Staton was elected to the Indiana Appellate Court in 1970 – the last year in which judges were elected to serve in that role. Under a new amendment to the Indiana Constitution, that court in 1970 became the Court of Appeals of Indiana, and Staton was retained by election. He wrote more than 3,000 majority opinions before retiring from the court in 2000.

Before earning his law degree from Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis in 1955, Judge Staton served in World War II with the 91st Infantry Division of the Fifth Army and was attached to the 801 Special Combat Force, which specialized in reconnaissance work behind enemy lines. He achieved the rank of major and was awarded numerous medals, including a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

After law school, Staton was a deputy prosecuting attorney in Marion County, eventually holding the position of chief trial deputy prosecutor. He then entered private practice and founded the law firm of Staton & Ward.

He was preceded in death by his wife, Jane Ellen (Cox) Staton. He is survived by his two daughters who are also attorneys, Jennifer Staton Stoesz (Steven), of Carmel; and Elizabeth Staton Idleman (Scott), of Milwaukee. He has four grandchildren: Jacob Staton Stoesz, Sarah Jane Stoesz, Katherine Elizabeth Idleman, and Peter Gregory Idleman.

Memorial contributions may be made to The Honorable Robert H. Staton Intramural Moot Court Competition at IU School of Law-Indianapolis c/o IU Foundation Showalter House, PO Box 500, Bloomington, IN, 47402; or Carmel Clay Public Library Foundation, 55 4th Ave. S.E., Carmel, IN, 46032.

For more on Judge Staton, see the Aug. 3 edition of Indiana Lawyer.

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. 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