Judicial retention

Marion County judicial selection bill clears House

February 2, 2017
Dave Stafford
The Indiana House Thursday passed a bill creating a unique judicial-selection commission that gives lawmakers and Marion County political party leaders a majority of seats at the table. The bill has been heavily criticized by Indianapolis’ minority lawmakers and others.
More

House panel advances Marion County judicial selection bill

January 26, 2017
Dave Stafford
Despite public concerns that a bill for choosing Indianapolis judges would reduce diversity on the bench, deprive Marion County residents of the right to directly elect jurists and elevate political considerations, a House committee Wednesday advanced a merit-selection measure supported by lawyers, judges and the business community.
More

Critics blast Marion County judge-selection proposals

January 11, 2017
Dave Stafford
Legislation assuring partisan balance on the bench has key stakeholder and lawmaker support.
More

Legislation would extend Marion Superior judges’ terms

January 5, 2017
Dave Stafford
A proposal for a new judicial selection system for Indianapolis would require term extensions for all 36 Marion Superior judges, the bill’s author said.
More

Merit selection, with recommendations for voters, proposed for Indy bench

January 4, 2017
Dave Stafford
A bill in the Indiana General Assembly would establish merit selection for Marion Superior judges, but Indianapolis’ version would also include recommendations from the judicial selection committee on whether voters should retain judges.
More

ISBA poll shows strong support for COA judges’ retention

October 5, 2016
IL Staff
A recently completed poll of Indiana State Bar Association members shows strong support for the four Indiana Court of Appeals judges seeking retention in the Nov. 8 general election.
More

Website set up for COA judges facing retention vote

July 18, 2016
IL Staff
Indiana’s state courts have established a website with information about four Indiana Court of Appeals judges facing retention on the November ballot.
More

Comment sought on reappointment of magistrate

December 3, 2015
IL Staff
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana wants to know whether a magistrate judge should be reappointed to a new eight-year term.
More

Retiring Indiana justice praises state selection process

November 30, 2015
 Associated Press
An Indiana Supreme Court justice who is stepping down says he believes the state's process for picking his replacement contributes to public confidence in the court system.
More

All appeals judges retained by voters

November 5, 2014
IL Staff
The four Indiana appellate judges up for retention this year received approval from voters Tuesday.
More

ISBA members say ‘yes’ to retaining appellate judges

October 8, 2014
IL Staff
The four Indiana appellate judges up for retention next month have the approval of ISBA members, according to survey results released Tuesday by the organization. Members overwhelmingly voted that the judges should be retained.
More

Public asked to comment on magistrate’s reappointment

August 6, 2014
IL Staff
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana is accepting comments on whether Magistrate Judge Craig M. McKee should be recommended for reappointment.
More

Court seeks comment on reappointment of Magistrate Cosbey

May 2, 2013
IL Staff
The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Indiana is now accepting comment on whether Magistrate Judge Roger Cosbey should be reappointed when his term expires Jan 2, 2014.
More

Indiana Sen. Mike Delph's bills raise brows in legal community

February 13, 2013
Dave Stafford
Senator drops "loser pays" attorney fees plan, but other bills target grand juries and propose retention supermajority.
More

2012 Year in Review

January 2, 2013
IL Staff
2012 was another busy year for the legal community. We welcomed new justices and a new chief justice, witnessed the beginnings of the state’s fifth law school, and saw local stories garner national and international attention. Here’s a look back at the top news stories from last year.
More

All appellate judges on the ballot retained by voters

November 7, 2012
IL Staff
Collecting more than a million “yes” votes each, Indiana Justices Steven David and Robert Rucker have been retained in office. David faced opposition from some who disagreed with the majority opinion he authored regarding unlawful police entry into homes.
More

Tea party radio ad opposes David’s retention; Shepard gives backing

November 2, 2012
Dave Stafford
Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. has produced a radio advertisement critical of Justice Steven David ahead of his retention vote on Tuesday.
More

Signs of dissent in retention vote

October 24, 2012
Dave Stafford
Justice Steven David's Barnes opinion finding no right to resist unlawful police entry results in an unusual ouster effort on an otherwise quiet appellate judicial ballot.
More

Lucas: More information is needed when judging the judges

October 24, 2012
Kelly Lucas
Up the street and around the corner from my Broad Ripple house, a yard sign caught my eye that didn’t involve the usual Democrat versus Republican political rhetoric. This simple, hand-painted sign called for the ouster of Supreme Court Justice Steven David.
More

Justice David creates retention website

October 22, 2012
Dave Stafford
Facing opposition over an opinion regarding unlawful police entry, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David has established a website in an unusual effort to campaign for retention.
More

ISBA members approve of appellate judges up for retention

October 16, 2012
IL Staff
The Indiana State Bar Association has released results of its 2012 Judicial Retention Poll. None of the six appellate judges up for retention in the Indiana Supreme Court or Court of Appeals received less than 81 percent of “yes” votes.
More

Survey says: retain 2 Lake County judges

October 15, 2012
IL Staff
Respondents to a recent survey conducted by the Lake County Bar Association on two judges up for retention this year have recommended the judges be retained.
More

Court launches 2012 retention site

July 17, 2012
IL Staff
The Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration has designed a retention website for voters to learn about the six appellate judges up for retention this November.
More

Supreme Court Justice Rucker to run for retention

July 11, 2012
Dave Stafford
Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker will stand for retention, ending speculation that he might become the fourth justice to step down in the last two years.
More

Indiana Judges Association: Is it time for an electoral college for judges?

May 9, 2012
David Dreyer
Some people just do not like judges. But according to Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Charles Geyh, most people do – at least up to a point.
More
Page  1 2 3 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
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. 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.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT