Justice Steven H. David
Justice: Ruling lets government agents enter homes illegally
May 12, 2011
Jennifer NelsonTwo Indiana Supreme Court justices dissented from their colleagues in a case involving the right to resist unlawful police
entry into a home, with one justice writing that he believes the majority is “essentially telling Indiana citizens that
government agents may now enter their homes illegally.”
MoreJustices address judicial-temperance presumption
May 6, 2011
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court used an opinion Thursday to reaffirm the limitation described in Fletcher v. State on the
judicial-temperance presumption.
More4 Indiana justices testify on state budget
March 29, 2011
Michael HoskinsFour of the Indiana Supreme Court justices testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee Monday night, talking to lawmakers
specifically about the need for an appellate case management system, more funding for public defense, and continued fairness
in how judicial officers and prosecutors are paid throughout the state.
MoreJustices' split reinstates COA annexation ruling
February 2, 2011
Michael HoskinsA split decision by the Indiana Supreme Court on an annexation battle between Greenwood and Bargersville means a lower appellate
panel’s decision is reinstated and the city takes a win in the 29-month legal battle that has statewide implications.
MoreGovernor names two new trial judges
December 29, 2010
Michael HoskinsGov. Mitch Daniels has chosen two new judges for the state’s trial bench roster, one of those to succeed the jurist
elevated earlier this year to the Indiana Supreme Court.
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.
MoreJustice's first ruling affirms murder convictions, life sentence
December 21, 2010
Michael HoskinsIndiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David issued his first decision as a member of the state’s highest court, affirming
a life without parole sentence in a murder case out of Hamilton County.
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.
MoreGiving a gift of life
November 10, 2010
Rebecca BerfangerFor some, when a family member needs something, there’s no doubt that the right thing to do is step up and give. That
was the case with two members of the legal community.
MoreJustice David joins the Indiana Supreme Court
October 27, 2010
Michael HoskinsOne word marked Justice Steven H. David’s beginning on the Indiana Supreme Court: wow.
MoreSupreme Court appoints new justice’s Circuit Court replacement
October 19, 2010
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court has appointed a judge who will fill a vacancy on Boone Circuit Court caused by The Hon. Steven David
becoming the newest state justice. The high court appointed attorney J. Jeffrey Edens as judge pro tempore in Boone Circuit
Court.
MoreNew justice joins the Indiana Supreme Court
October 18, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe state now has its 106th justice on the Indiana Supreme Court. Justice Steven H. David officially took his oath and donned
his black robe for the state’s highest court today, culminating a process that began with a May announcement that Justice
Theodore R. Boehm was stepping down from the bench. Gov. Mitch Daniels chose the 15-year Boone Circuit judge about a month
ago.
MoreDiscipline case poses questions on recusals, separation of powers
October 13, 2010
Michael HoskinsDelaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney should be publicly reprimanded for violating four professional conduct rules in his
handling of civil forfeiture matters as a private attorney while simultaneously prosecuting those same criminal defendants,
according to a hearing officer the Indiana Supreme Court appointed to examine disciplinary charges against the prosecutor.
MoreSupreme Court will have 18-day gap between justices
September 28, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court will be missing one of its five members for almost three weeks as its new justice wraps up remaining
business on the Boone Circuit Court before taking the appellate bench.
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.