ILNews

Rush named to Indiana Supreme Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge with a statewide reputation as a leader in juvenile justice was named Friday as Indiana’s 108th Supreme Court justice and the second woman to serve on the high court.

Tippecanoe Superior Judge Loretta Rush, 54, said she was thrilled to get the news that Gov. Mitch Daniels had selected her from a field of three finalists to replace retired Justice Frank Sullivan Jr.

“I hope your hearing has come back to your left ear,” Rush quipped to Daniels, who called Rush on Thursday to confirm that he had chosen to appoint her.

“I intend to work with the other four justices to build on our Supreme Court’s record of excellence, integrity and respect for the law,” Rush said in her official statement. She said that as a judge, she’s been “a beneficiary of the standard set by the Indiana Supreme Court.”

Indiana had been one of three states, along with Idaho and Iowa, without a woman on its Supreme Court, but Daniels said gender played a small role in his choice.

“As I’ve said on many, many previous occasions, quality comes first,” Daniels said. He called Rush’s years in private practice and on the bench stellar and said her background and judicial temperament made her stand out.

“I’m utterly convinced Indiana is making the best possible choice,” he said.

In addition to overseeing the Tippecanoe County court that deals with juvenile cases, Rush chairs the Indiana Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee that has worked to better and standardize child welfare practices. She also is the president of the 113-member Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

“No one has been more respected in this area than Judge Rush,” Daniels said.

Rush accepted the appointment with her husband, James, and three of her four children beside her. “Having my family’s support is huge,” she said.

Rush said she believes in judicial restraint and cited the opinions of Antonin Scalia when asked about U.S. Supreme Court justices she respects. Daniels praised Rush for “respect for the meaning of words as they are written.”

With Daniels next year taking the helm at Purdue University, he chose in Rush a Boilermaker alum who worked her way through Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Out of law school, Rush worked in private practice with fellow Purdue grad and Chief Justice Brent Dickson at Dickson Reiling Teder and Withered in Lafayette.

“I was a lawyer in Lafayette when our firm was privileged to hire Loretta to work for us,” Dickson said Friday. “She’s a product of Indiana education at its best. … She’s going to be a great addition to the court.”

Daniels said Rush indicated a hope and ambition to serve on the court for many years, which he said would be important to foster the court’s reputation for continuity.

Rush’s application to the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission can be viewed on the court's website.

Rush will replace Sullivan, who retired from the court July 31 to teach at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Since Sullivan’s retirement, the court has issued just one opinion.

When Rush will join the Supreme Court is uncertain. A formal robing ceremony has not been set. Rush said she must clear her active caseload in Tippecanoe County, and Dickson said the Supreme Court will appoint a temporary judge to fill in until Daniels names a replacement.

Rush will join Myra Selby as Indiana’s only other female justice. Selby served on the Supreme Court from 1995 to 1999.

Rush is Daniels’ third appointment to the five-member panel, having previously named justices Steven David to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Ted Boehm and Mark Massa to succeed former Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who stepped down this year.

The other finalists were Hamilton Superior Judge Steve Nation and attorney Geoffrey Slaughter.


 

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 like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT