Justice Robert D. Rucker
Indiana courts to host judicial independence panel discussion
February 1, 2011
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court is hosting a panel discussion in mid-February to discuss the broad topic of judicial independence
and how courts operate in our democracy, and it’s turning to the online and social media world to help shape how the
event unfolds.
MoreJustices sharply split on insanity defense case
December 23, 2010
Michael HoskinsFaults in the state’s mental health system can’t be used to justify an insanity defense being rejected in favor
of a different sentence that will keep a person locked up, an Indiana Supreme Court majority ruled.
MoreJustices split over IHSAA athlete eligibility ruling
December 20, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIndiana’s justices couldn’t agree on whether they should even rule on a case involving an athlete’s eligibility
in high school when the girl is now playing college basketball.
MoreJustices divided on firearm 'use' sentencing
December 15, 2010
Michael HoskinsA divided Indiana Supreme Court has held that state statute dictates that the use of a firearm can be the grounds for a sentence
enhancement that doesn’t constitute a double jeopardy violation.
MoreLocal courts, educational program named after 3 Indiana jurists
December 8, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe practice of naming a building after someone is a longstanding tradition throughout the country, but one of the most common
practices in those renamings is waiting until someone dies to dedicate that place.
MoreIndiana Supreme Court upholds death sentence
October 5, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has declined to grant a twice-convicted death row inmate’s request for a new trial, upholding
his convictions and penalty for murders that go back more than a decade.
MoreSupreme Court reverses parental-rights termination
October 5, 2010
Elizabeth BrockettThe Indiana Supreme Court reversed a father’s involuntary termination of parental rights today, noting the lack of clear
and convincing evidence.
MoreHigh court divided on faulty workmanship coverage under CGL policy
October 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe high court split on whether an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy covers an insured
contract for faulty workmanship of its subcontractor.
MoreJustices rule in favor of casinos
September 30, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has given casinos a double win today, saying the businesses can ban card-counting and also that
state statute doesn’t allow patrons to recover for losses they might incur because of problem gambling.
MoreReligious defense doesn't discharge court's subject matter jurisdiction
September 22, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA court with authority to hear defamation and invasion of privacy claims is not ousted of subject matter jurisdiction just
because a defendant pleads a religious defense, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.
MoreIndiana Supreme Court review analyzes trends, voting patterns
July 7, 2010
Michael HoskinsEvery summer, an attorney-authored review analyzes and highlights the Indiana Supreme Court’s activity during the past
year. But only rarely does that report come at a time when the state’s highest court is seeing change.
MoreJustices: no summary judgment for grocer in negligence suit
July 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court upheld the denial of a supermarket’s motion for summary judgment in a negligence case, finding
the company failed to carry its burden in showing that criminal activity on its premises at the time a customer was assaulted
wasn’t foreseeable.
MoreKimbrough Bar serves NW Indiana
June 23, 2010
Rebecca BerfangerShelice R. Tolbert, a partner at the Crown Point office of Kopka Pinkus Dolin & Eads, was sworn in as president of the
James C. Kimbrough Bar Association by a longtime bar association supporter and member, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert
D. Rucker, who has personal and professional ties to northwest Indiana.
MoreJustices say sentencing scores can be used
June 10, 2010
Michael HoskinsState trial judges can consider sentencing scores to help tailor penalties to individual defendants, as long as those results
aren’t used as final aggravating or mitigating factors in deciding a penalty length, the Indiana Supreme Court says
MoreJustices differ on defining 'youth program center'
June 9, 2010
Jennifer NelsonTwo Indiana Supreme Court justices objected to affirming a man’s drug sentence for possession within 1,000 feet of a
“youth program center” because the church that ran the programs wasn’t easily identifiable as regularly
running programs for kids.
MoreCourthouse to be named after justice
February 22, 2010
IL StaffThe Lake County Superior Courthouse in Gary will soon have a new name to honor an Indiana Supreme Court Justice.
MoreJustices overturn man's registration requirement
January 7, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA Grant Superior judge erred in sentencing a man to register as a sex offender because that requirement wasn't in place
at the time he committed his crime, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled.
MoreJustices uphold probation revocation
December 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court disagreed with the Indiana Court of Appeals that the appellate court could review a defendant's
appeal - either because it qualified as a rare and exceptional case of great public interest or under Post-Conviction Rule
2. The Supreme Court deemed the man's failure to timely file an appeal to the revocation of his probation as fatal to
his claim.
MoreSupreme Court upholds denial of continuance
October 27, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe majority of justices on the Indiana Supreme Court agreed that the trial court didn't abuse its discretion in denying
a married couple's pro se motion to continue after their attorney withdrew six weeks before trial. The dissenting justice
argued because of the complexities of the case, the trial court should have granted the couple's motion.
MoreCourt split on if lab tech must testify
September 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's highest court was split in its ruling on whether the failure of a lab technician who processed DNA evidence
to testify at a man's trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
MoreChanges coming to Child Support Rules
September 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn order issued by the Indiana Supreme Court today amending the state's Child Support Rules and Guidelines caused two
justices to dissent in part over worries a change may alter precedent.
MoreTax exemption doesn't apply to hotel utilities
June 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court was split today in its ruling on whether a hotel was entitled to a sales tax exemption on utilities
it purchased during 2004 and 2005.
MoreJustices: License plates can't be in rear windows
May 29, 2009
Michael HoskinsJustice Robert Rucker says his four Indiana Supreme Court colleagues have issued a ruling that transforms millions of law-abiding
residents into traffic offenders.
MoreJustices split on discounted medical expenses
May 28, 2009
Michael HoskinsIn a ruling about whether insurance discounts can be used to determine reasonable medical expenses, two Indiana Supreme Court
justices say their colleagues have created a new rule that is "incomplete, misleading, and unfair" and will add
"layers of complexity, time, and expense to personal injury litigation, impairing the efficient administration of justice."
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!