ILNews

Muncie lawyer named city court judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Muncie law firm will remain intact after both of its longtime partners take the bench in January.

Gov. Mitch Daniels on Friday named William G. Bruns with Cannon & Bruns to be a judge of the Muncie City Court. He succeeds Judge Linda Ralu Wolf, who's been on the bench since 1988 and has been elected to Delaware Circuit 3.

This follows the November election of his longtime law partner, Tom Cannon Jr., as Delaware Circuit 5 judge. He replaces Judge Chris Teagle who's been filling a vacancy since spring. Cannon has been an attorney for 34 years and is also a former juvenile referee.

Bruns plans to continue his civil practice while holding the part-time judicial post Monday and Wednesday afternoons, and all day Thursday. He will handle only civil work, and not handle anything else such as the criminal or domestic cases his partner did.

The name on the door will remain the same, Bruns said - he'd practiced for decades with partner Thomas Cannon Sr., who died in 2003.

"We'll remain intact, but it'll become an individual proprietorship," Bruns said. "I'll keep a limited civil practice going, but will be here."

Bruns has been an attorney for more than four decades, practicing at his current law firm since 1971. A former deputy prosecutor, the 1961 Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington graduate also has served as a pro tem judge and was formerly a judge advocate for the U.S. Air Force.

"This will be a new experience for me, and at my age it's always good to have new challenges," he said.

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT