Indiana Judges Association: Justice Rucker: A lifetime of substantial justice

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-Davidsubstantial justice: justice of a sufficient degree especially to satisfy a standard of fairness; also: justice administered according to the substance and not necessarily the form of the law — Merriam-Webster

Henry McCullough served in Vietnam and was honorably discharged. Eventually, he and his wife found themselves facing the loss of their home of 20 years. They were unable to afford a lawyer, but defended themselves regardless of the perils of unrepresented litigants. The trial court entered a judgment of foreclosure. The couple then embarked upon the uncertain seas of appellate procedure. They tried to write a proper brief but failed by a long shot, so it was rejected by the clerk. Eventually, the appeal was dismissed because the McCulloughs apparently could not figure it out. Although transfer was initially, and not surprisingly, rejected by the Indiana Supreme Court, the case was later accepted. In March, Justice Robert Rucker wrote the unanimous opinion affirming the trial court and the foreclosure of the home — closing the case, but giving a vet his full measure of due process.

May 12, 2017, marked the last day of Justice Rucker’s service on the Indiana Supreme Court. After 26 total years on the appellate bench, he has authored more than 1,000 majority opinions. Like the foreclosure of a veteran’s home, Justice Rucker has become known as a strong advocate of “doing substantial justice,” which, he will tell you, is a judge’s job. As he explained recently, the case “touched” him, and was therefore deserving of the right result — that is, making sure the vet received the full explanation of why he was losing his home, even though the result was unfavorable. His fair day in court was the least he was seeking, and at least what the court could give him. Justice Rucker showed there are ways a court can be sympathetic without the benefit of law or procedure and benefit a party even when they don’t “win.”

Justice Rucker originally set out to become a doctor when he met Alton L. Gill Jr., a Lake County attorney who helped him with a minor matter. The effect of that meeting led young Rucker to discover law as the right path. Although he found success as a practicing attorney, he was heavily lobbied to seek an appointment on the Court of Appeals, where, as he says, “I went from pounding on the table to telling counsel to calm down.” Time as an appellate judge led him to know “what it means to collaborate,” which he has done admirably.

Richard Posner once wrote that lawyers should recognize the “essentially pragmatic disposition of most American judges” and emphasize “the practical stakes in the case and thus the consequences of the decision.” Well-known as a primary progenitor of the law and economics school of jurisprudence, Judge Posner was actually writing about the role of the judge in the 21st century. He believes judges are most defined by their ideology, not their politics or personal preferences. Ideology, says Posner, is shown by the consistent worldview that shapes one’s answers to questions about social, economic and political issues.

But how can a judge allow his or her ideology to affect the court’s judgments? Many years ago, before Rucker became a justice, a man named Michael R. Pence sued the state of Indiana as a taxpayer challenging the constitutionality of a new statute. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the state for lack of standing. When describing its decision that standing is an inflexible part of a court’s jurisdiction, the court also explained that “we do not permit overly formalistic interpretations … to impede substantial justice,” but strict separation of powers dictated that particular result. In other words, the court stated, as Justice Rucker says now, that prescribed rules of law can necessarily be balanced by “substantial justice.” Does this allow ideology as a basis of decision-making? Justice Rucker’s worldview is inclusive, sympathetic, constrained by the law, and yet shaped by practical experience. Accordingly, his “ideology,” as Judge Posner would say, is one in which the effect of law and procedure comports to fair-mindedness regardless of the result or what law might require. Such is real justice; such is substantial justice. Justice Rucker has lived this ideal all his professional life.

After all this time, what case most sticks with Justice Rucker? He will say it is Anglemyer v. State of Indiana, in which he paddled among a complex array of federal and state obstacles and steered Indiana clear to a new sentencing scheme. Most importantly, he found that criminal defendants deserve at least a “sentencing statement” before they go to jail that explains why they are getting what they got. Like the veteran foreclosure case in March, it’s only fair, even if you lose. It’s substantial justice. It’s the least we can do. It’s the best that Justice Robert Rucker did for everybody.•


Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. We are a Finance Industry Company professionals with over 15 Years Experience and a focus on providing Bank Guarantee and Standby Letter of Credit from some of the World Top 25 Prime Banks primarily from Barclays, Deutsche Bank, HSBC,Credit Suisse e.t.c. FEATURES: Amounts from $1 million to 5 Billion+ Euro’s or US Dollars Great Attorney Trust Account Protection Delivered via MT760, MT799 and MT103 Swift with Full Bank Responsibility Brokers Always Protected Purchase Instrument of BG/SBLC : 32%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Lease Instrument of BG/SBLC : 4%+2% Min Face Value cut = EUR/USD 1M-5B Interested Agents/Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. We Facilitate Bank instruments SBLC for Lease and Purchase. Whether you are a new startup, medium or large establishment that needs a financial solution to fund/get your project off the ground or business looking for extra capital to expand your operation,our company renders credible and trusted bank guarantee provider who are willing to fund and give financing solutions that suits your specific business needs. We help you secure and issue sblc and bank guarantee for your trade, projects and investment from top AA rated world Banks like HSBC, Barclays, Dutch Ing Bank, Llyods e.t.c because that’s the best and safest strategy for our clients.e.t.c DESCRIPTION OF INSTRUMENTS 1. Instrument: Funds backed Bank Guarantee(BG) ICC-600 2. Currency : USD/EURO 3. Age of Issue: Fresh Cut 4. Term: One year and One day 5. Contract Amount: United State Dollars/Euros (Buyers Face Value) 6. Price : Buy:32%+1, Lease: 4%+2 7. Subsequent tranches: To be mutually agreed between both parties 8. Issuing Bank: Top RATED world banks like HSBC, Barclays, ING Dutch Bank, Llyods e.t.c 9. Delivery Term: Pre advise MT199 or MT799 first. Followed By SWIFT MT760 10. Payment Term: MT799 & Settlement via MT103 11. Hard Copy: By Bank Bonded Courier Interested Agents,Brokers, Investors and Individual proposing international project funding should contact us for directives.We will be glad to share our working procedures with you upon request. Name:Richardson McAnthony Contact Mail :

  4. Affordable Loan Offer ( NEED A LOAN?Sometime i really wanna help those in a financial problems.i was wondering why some people talks about inability to get a loan from a bank/company. have you guys ever try Eric Benson lending cost dollars to loan from their company. my aunty from USA,just got a home loan from Eric Benson Lending banking card service.and they gave her a loan of 8,000,000 USD. they give out loan from 100,000 USD - 100,000,000 USD. try it yourself and testimony. have a great day as you try.Kiss & Hug. Contact E-mail:

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.