Longtime Madison County judge dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A longtime Madison County judge died suddenly Wednesday. Judge David W. Hopper, 60, had served as a jurist for a total of 28 years. He spent 22 years as judge of Madison County Courts Division 1 and Superior Court 4. Perhaps his legacy in Madison County will be most felt through his work in the Madison County Drug Court Program.

Madison Superior Judge Dennis Carroll, who had known Judge Hopper since they both took the bench in 1981, said there are a number of legacies in the county as a result of Judge Hopper but the one he was most proud of was drug court.

"His temperament, his style, his empathy, his personality was so well-suited for a problem-solving court like drug court," Judge Carroll said. "He was really able to shine in that environment."

Many graduates of the drug court literally owe their lives to Judge Hopper and many people in Madison County think of him as the drug court judge.

Judge Hopper was first elected in 1980 in Madison County; when he lost an election and was out of office for six years, he worked as Hamilton County Circuit Court Master Commissioner until he was re-elected to the bench in Madison County.

Originally a teacher, Judge Hopper graduated from Indiana University School of Law in 1978. At one time, he was a regular lecturer at the National Judicial College in Reno, Nev., said Judge Carroll. In 2006, he was named the Indiana Correctional Association Judge of the Year. According to his election Web site, Judge Hopper resolved more than 70,000 cases in his time on the bench.

Judge Hopper had just become the chief justice of the county courts this year, which will now revert back to Judge Carroll, who was chief justice last year.

Judge Hopper was also active in his community and church. He was a "gentleman farmer," according to Judge Carroll and would take the week off of the 4-H Fair in Madison County. He also was a leader and deacon at his church.

He is survived by his wife, Durenda Sue Hopper; mother and stepfather, Cathy and Ralph Carlton; sons Hugh David Hopper and Andrew Hopper; four brothers and one sister; three grandchildren; and several nieces and nephews.

Visitation will be from 2 to 8 p.m. March 1 at Rozelle-Johnson Funeral Service, 229 S. Rangeline Road, Anderson, and one hour prior to the March 2 service at Bethany Christian Church, 1920 N. Rangeline Road, Anderson; services begin at 1 p.m.

Memorial contributions may be made to Jail Ministry Chaplaincy Program, Madison County 4-H Association, Fall Creek Christian Church, or Milligan College.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?