ILNews

Law School Briefs - 10/26/11

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law School Briefs

Law School Briefs is Indiana Lawyer’s section highlighting news from law schools in Indiana. While IL has always covered law school news and continues to keep up with law school websites and press releases for updates, we gladly accept submissions for this section from law students, professors, alumni, and others who want to share law school-related news. If you’d like to submit news or a photo from an event, please send it to Jenny Montgomery at jmontgomery@ibj.com, along with contact information for any follow-up questions at least two weeks in advance of the issue date.

IU – Indy lecture

Gerard Magliocca, Samuel R. Rosen Professor at Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, will present a lecture on constitutional liability rules at 5 p.m. Nov. 8 at Inlow Hall, Wynne Courtroom, 530 W. New York St., Indianapolis. A reception follows at 6 p.m. in the Conour Atrium.

One hour of continuing legal education credit is available. The lecture is free and open to the public, and parking is available for a fee at the Gateway Garage, 525 Blackford St.

Magliocca joined the faculty at the IU School of Law – Indianapolis following two years as an associate with the international law firm Covington and Burling and one year as a clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Magliocca is also the author of the book, “Andrew Jackson and the Constitution: The Rise and Fall of Generational Regimes,” and “The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash.”

Additional information about this event can be found on the school’s website: http://indylaw.indiana.edu/news/events.cfm?eid=464.

Supreme Court at Notre Dame

The Indiana Supreme Court will be at the University of Notre Dame Law School to hear arguments in the case of Jerrme Damar Cartwright v. State of Indiana, No. 82S01-1109-CR-564. The arguments will begin at 3:30 p.m. Nov. 14 in the Patrick F. McCartan Courtroom, 1170 Eck Hall of Law, Notre Dame.

Cartwright was convicted for attempted battery with a deadly weapon, attempted aggravated battery and possession of a handgun by a felon. The Court of Appeals reversed his conviction on grounds that the jury was selected unfairly.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT