ILNews

Longtime Fort Wayne attorney dies

IL Staff
March 17, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Fort Wayne attorney who practiced law for more than 60 years died Monday.

Jerome J. "Jerry" O'Dowd, 90, was admitted to the bar in June 1942. He practiced in Fort Wayne from 1946 until his retirement in August 2004. O'Dowd belonged to the Indiana State and Allen County bar associations and served on various local government boards including the Allen County Election Board, Allen County Park Board, and Board of Directors of Park Center Inc. O'Dowd served as corporate attorney for the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend for 30 years. He was appointed in 1959 to a four-year term as city attorney of Fort Wayne.

O'Dowd graduated from Notre Dame Law School and served in the Navy during World War II. He was awarded the Silver Star Medal for action at Guam, the Navy Cross at Iwo Jima, and three Presidential Citations. He retired from the Naval Reserve in 1949.

O'Dowd is survived by his wife, Ruth Holthouse O'Dowd; sons Thomas, David, and Kevin O'Dowd; daughters Amy O'Dowd Ryan and Sally O'Dowd; and several grandchildren and nieces.

Calling is from 3 to 7 p.m. Wednesday at D.O. McComb & Sons Lakeside Park Funeral Home, 1140 Lake Ave., Fort Wayne. Mass of Christian burial is 10:30 a.m. Thursday at St. Jude Catholic Church, 2310 Pemberton Dr., Fort Wayne, with calling one hour prior to the service.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT