ILNews

Pyle takes oath at robing ceremony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s newest Court of Appeals judge also holds the distinction of being the only official appointed twice by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Daniels said it was three years ago Tuesday that he appointed Rudolph Pyle III to the vacancy in Madison Circuit Court. Daniels, an avid biker, joked during Pyle’s robing ceremony that his subsequent appointment of Pyle to the appellate bench had nothing to do with the judge’s past as a motorcycle instructor.

“In a close one it would have been a tie-breaker,” Daniels said. “This wasn’t a close one.”

Pyle choked back tears as he thanked his parents, Rudolph and Caroline Pyle, who performed the ceremonial robing Oct. 16. “My parents gave me the foundation for success through love, discipline and excellence,” he said.

Pyle also praised his mentor – the man he succeeded, COA Senior Judge Carr Darden – for whom Pyle was a law clerk while a student at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Darden, he said, taught him not only what it was to be a good judge, but to be a good attorney.

Darden said it’s no surprise people recognize Pyle as a young, smart, rising jurist.

“You see, I’ve been doing that for a long time,” he said.

Pyle is believed to be the first Indiana appellate judge who also clerked for the appellate bench, COA spokesman Martin DeAgostino said.

Pyle also is the first appellate judge who was an Indiana Conference for Legal Education Opportunity fellow. He also is the first appellate judge who formerly served as an Indiana State Police trooper.

COA Chief Judge Margret Robb said a cursory glance at Pyle’s resume, which also includes work as a deputy prosecutor, proves humbling. “You have a clear picture of the gifts Judge Pyle brings to the court,” she said.

But all those accomplishments, she said, “are nowhere near as important as what Judge Pyle will do in the future.”

Pyle also noted that the occasion allowed men, women and people of all races and creeds to join together in the chambers of the Indiana Supreme Court. “There are folks in this room who remember a time when that was not so,” 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT