ILNews

Marion County senior judge dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A former Marion Superior judge and deputy prosecutor died May 2 after a long battle with cancer. Judge John R. "Jack" Barney Jr., 73, also served as a senior judge for Marion Circuit and Superior courts.

Judge Barney, an Indianapolis native, earned his law degree from Indiana University School of Law in 1962 and joined his father's law firm, Barney & Hughes, after graduation. He practiced at the firm, which later became Barney & Barney, until 1984.

Judge Barney was a Marion County deputy prosecutor for 12 years, including five years spent as chief deputy. He was elected judge in Marion Superior Court and served in the criminal division for 12 years, acting as associate presiding judge, presiding judge of jury pool, and presiding judge of probation department. He continued to serve as a senior judge after stepping down from the bench full time.

He was a pilot in the U.S. Air Force from 1956 to 1959 and continued to serve in the Air Force Reserves, retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 1978. He participated in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the same year he earned his law degree.

Active in the Republican Party, he was a co-founder with Sen. Richard Lugar of the first Marion County Young Republican Club. He was a longtime member of the Greater Indianapolis Republican Finance Committee and the Marion County Republican Veterans.

He was a past vice president and member of the Board of Managers of the Indianapolis Bar Association and a distinguished fellow of the Indianapolis Bar Foundation.

Judge Barney is survived by his mother, Helen A. Barney; wife, Nancy Campbell Barney; former wife, Sarah Cook Barney; children Elizabeth, John III, and Melissa; stepchildren Roger, Brad, and Brian; and grandchildren.

Calling will be from 2 to 8 p.m. Tuesday at St. Christopher's Episcopal Church, Carmel. The Burial Office and Holy Eucharist will be at 2 p.m. Wednesday at St. Christopher's. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to St. Christopher's Episcopal Church Memorial Fund, 1402 W. Main St., Carmel, 46032 or to the IU Foundation-Cancer Research, c/o Dr. Larry Einhorn, 535 Barnhill Dr., Room 473, Indianapolis, 46202.
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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT