ILNews

Marion Superior Judge Charles Deiter dies

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana has lost a longtime Marion County judge who's been on the probate bench for three decades and was considered one of the state's top probate jurists.

Marion Superior Judge Charles Deiter, 71, who presided over the court's probate division, lost a battle to cancer this morning, according to his colleague and longtime friend Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.

"He was a wonderful judge, someone who was well-loved by everyone in the community and on the bench," said Judge Pratt, who said the two of them lived in the same neighborhood and attended St. Joan of Arc Catholic Church together. "He was a wonderful person, and this is such as loss for everyone."

Judge Deiter took the bench as a probate court commissioner in 1978 and served in that capacity until his election as judge in 1991. The judge's term expired at the end of this year; he did not run for re-election because of his planned retirement.

In January, Judge Pratt was planning to move from criminal court to his Probate Division 8. Now, that move may happen earlier, and the pro tempore judges who've been assisting will be asked to help more, she said.

The judge, who had been optimistic and doing well with chemotherapy, was hoping to return to the bench before his judicial term expired, Judge Pratt said.

Prior to becoming a commissioner in probate court, the 1965 Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington graduate served as a commissioner in the civil division for a year, and he'd worked for about four years in the Indiana Attorney General's Office after law school.

Arrangements are pending but are tentatively scheduled for calling Friday and a funeral mass Saturday. The services will be at St. Joan of Arc, 4217 Central Ave., Indianapolis, according to Judge Pratt.
ADVERTISEMENT

  • R.I.P. Grandpa
    Today is exactly 4 years when i lost my grandpa to lung cancer!! I miss and love him so much!! He was such a amazing guy he would do anything for anyone. I love you grandpa!!

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