Justice Robert D. Rucker
Justices to address university graduates
May 8, 2009
IL StaffIndiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Justice Robert D. Rucker will be commencement speakers at the graduation
ceremonies at two Indiana schools.
MoreJustices issue sex-offender registration rulings
April 30, 2009
Michael HoskinsConvicted sex offenders who've already served their sentences can't be forced to register for life by a newly enacted
statute, but the Indiana Supreme Court is split on whether that lifetime requirement should be imposed on offenders who are
still registering when the law is changed.
MoreJustices affirm cop killer's death sentence
April 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsA man sentenced to die for fatally shooting a Morgan County sheriff's deputy in 2001 will remain on death row despite
his appellate claims he's mentally ill and not eligible for execution.
MoreHigh court: land seller not liable in death
March 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing an issue of first impression today, the Indiana Supreme Court considered under what circumstances a vendor
of land may be liable to a third party for harm resulting from the condition of trees on the property near a road.
MoreJustices split in granting transfer
February 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court was split in its decision to deny transfer in a case in which a defendant claimed misconduct by
the prosecutor when he read a poem about drugs during voir dire.
MoreCommitted woman's charge must be dismissed
December 18, 2008
Jennifer NelsonFaced with a question the U. S. Supreme Court declined to address more than 35 years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed
a trial court's decision to dismiss a criminal charge against a committed woman who may never be able to stand trial because
of incompetence.
MoreHigh court vacates post-conviction relief petition
December 10, 2008
Jennifer NelsonAlthough the Indiana Supreme Court vacated the post-conviction court's grant of a petition for relief, it remanded the
issue to determine if it should be granted on other grounds raised in the petition.
MoreJustices disagree about jury instruction
October 21, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court was split in its ruling that a trial court properly instructed a jury regarding a habitual offender
finding, with the dissenters arguing the court's instruction was inadequate as compared to the defendant's proposed
jury instruction.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
Longest-practicing female attorney in Indiana has no plans to retire
-
Criminal code and expungement bills signed by governor
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
SCOTUS rules against Indiana farmer in seed patent case
-
Social media sleuths find evidence, but admissibility requires authentication
Court Calendar
-
May 24, 2013 Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, deceased - 5/24/13
-
May 28, 2013 The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco - 5/28/13
-
June 12, 2013 Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al. - 6/12/13
-
June 18, 2013 State of Indiana v. Robert Owens - 6/18/13
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.