ILNews

On the Move - 3/26/14

IL Staff
March 26, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
On The Move

On The Move highlights employment news, awards and honors attorneys receive, and board appointments or elected positions. Digital images should be 200 dpi and saved as eps, tiff or jpg. Color images are preferred. Information must be submitted at least 10 days before the Wednesday issue in which it is to appear. Submit your announcement at http://www.theindianalawyer.com/submit-on-the-move or email to managing editor Jennifer Nelson at jnelson@ibj.com. New Associations

mccrory-patricia-otm.jpg McCrory

*Patricia P. McCrory has joined the law firm of Katz & Korin as a partner. Her practice areas include business litigation, environmental law, and patent litigation.
rogers-alyssa-otm.jpg Rogers
*Alyssa Rogers joined OSP Group’s office of the general counsel as its assistant general counsel.

Appointments and Elections Gov. Mike Pence has appointed Mooresville attorney Linda Chezem to the Juvenile Justice State Advisory Board. Awards and Honors

robb-margret-otm Robb
Indiana Court of Appeals Judge *Margret Robb has received a 2014 Torchbearer Award from the Indiana Commission for Women.
herzog-david-otm.jpg Herzog
*David K. Herzog, leader of the national business litigation group at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, has been inducted as a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
foos-rob-otm.jpg Foos
Lewis Wagner LLP attorney *Robert Foos has been awarded Quality Distribution Inc.’s 2014 Defense Counsel of Distinction.
kiefer-richard-otm.jpg Kiefer
Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP partner *J. Richard Kiefer has been inducted as a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
hall-kimera-otm Hall
*Kimera Hall, member attorney in the Indianapolis office of Frost Brown Todd LLC, has been selected to the 2014 Fellows Program of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity.bullet character
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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT