ILNews

Longtime Lake Superior judge dies at 78

IL Staff
January 10, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Lake Superior Judge Gerald N. Svetanoff, 78, died Wednesday. Svetanoff was the longest-serving Lake Superior judge at the time of his death.

Svetanoff was appointed to the bench in 1981 by Gov. Robert D. Orr. He was presiding over Lake Superior Civil Division 4 when he petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court to appoint a judge pro tem “while he is unable to attend to the duties of his office” due to an illness, according to the Sept. 17 order.

Svetanoff was highly respected by attorneys who practiced before him and his fellow judges. His successes inspired his son, Joseph Svetanoff, to become a lawyer. Svetanoff was admitted to the bar in 1960 and was a law clerk to the Indiana Supreme Court. He entered private practice in Gary and also served as a judge pro tem in the Superior Court, County Division, in Crown Point.

He was a graduate of the Indiana Judicial College and belonged to many legal organizations, including the Lake County Bar Association.

Svetanoff was a lifelong resident of northwestern Indiana. He was born in Gary and attended Lew Wallace High School. He earned his degrees from Indiana University School of Business and the law school in Bloomington.

He is survived by his wife, Linda; son Joseph (Cathy); and grandchildren Natalia and Alexander.

Visitation is from 2 to 8 p.m. Sunday at Burns Funeral Home, 10101 Broadway, Crown Point. A short memorial service is at 7 p.m. Sunday. The funeral service will be at 10 a.m. Monday at the funeral home, with burial directly following the service at Calumet Park Cemetery, 2305 W. 73rd Ave., Merrillville.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT