Judicial appointments made to Marion and Vanderburgh Superior courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In one of his last official acts as governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels appointed judges to the Vanderburgh and Marion Superior courts. When the two judges will assume their new duties has not been determined.

Gary Miller will replace Judge Robyn Moberly on the Marion Superior Court bench. Moberly was named a bankruptcy judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in October and was sworn in Nov. 1.

Miller has experience in the Marion Superior Court, serving 18 years as judge in the criminal and civil divisions. He is a founding partner of the general law practice of Miller Myer LLP and currently sits as senior judge in Putnam, Boone, Johnson and Shelby counties.

He graduated from Indiana University in 1977 and earned his law degree from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in 1980.

Leslie Curtis Shively has been appointed judge of the Vanderburgh Superior Court. He replaces Judge David Kiely, who was elected in November to replace retiring Judge Carl Heldt at the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.

This is Shively’s first judicial appointment. He has been a practicing attorney for over 32 years, currently serving as the principal attorney at Shively & Associates. Also, for the past 12 years he has acted as a hearing officer in attorney disciplinary proceedings. From 2001 to 2011, he served as a member of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners and was president of the board for two years.

He holds both an undergraduate degree and master’s degree from Indiana University. He earned his law degree from I.U. McKinney School of Law in 1980.



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. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?