ILNews

Retired COA Judge William G. Conover dies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Indiana Court of Appeals Judge William G. Conover died Monday in Valparaiso. He was 86.

Conover retired from the appellate court in 1993 after a legal career that spanned four decades. He served two more years as a senior judge. Judge Patricia Riley succeeded him on the appellate bench.

“Judge Conover was from a generation of people – the greatest generation – that took charge and got things done,” said Court of Appeals Judge John Baker, who served with Conover in the late 1980s and early 90s. “He was a good student of the law. From time to time he may have thought the law should have been different, but he applied it as he found it. He was a real asset to our court and the legal profession.”

Conover was a World War II veteran who served in the U.S. Navy’s construction battalion building and preparing airbases in the Pacific Ocean before being honorably discharged in 1946. After graduating from Valparaiso University School of Law in 1951, Conover became a Valparaiso City Court judge in 1952. Before joining the appellate bench, he maintained a general private practice and served in several public posts, including Porter County Plan Commission attorney and later as Porter County prosecutor from 1963 to 1971. His legal and community involvement included service as president of the Porter County Bar Association in 1965. Gov. Robert Orr appointed him to the appellate bench in 1981.

Arrangements are pending at Moeller Funeral Home in Valparaiso.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT