ILNews

SCOTUS won't take Indiana bar exam case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to take several Indiana cases, including a federal suit against the state’s Board of Law Examiners filed by a man who wants to take the bar exam without going to law school.

An order list released this morning includes cases that the Supreme Court considered at its conference on Friday, and nine cases from Indiana are included.

The court declined to take Clarence Carter v. Chief Justice and Justices of the Indiana Supreme Court, et al., No. 11-5684, which comes from the Southern District of Indiana. U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt earlier this year dismissed the lawsuit, which claimed that the state justices and BLE violated Clarence Carter’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection to sit for the bar exam in Indiana. Administrative Rule 13 requires that person attend law school to sit for the bar exam, and Carter alleged that requirement arbitrarily excluded him from the chance to qualify to practice in this state.

The SCOTUS also denied: Anthony E. Moore v. U.S., No. 11-6244; Ty Brock v. U.S., No. 11-6308; Patrick Thelen v. William A. Sherrod, No. 11-6334; Anthony L. Fletcher v. U.S., No. 10-10562; Richard Wallace v. United States, No. 11-251; Antonio Kendrick v. Marcus Hardy, No. 11-5621; and Roger Yeadon, Jr. v. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., No. 11-6024.

The justices are expected to consider at least three more Indiana cases.
 

Marcus Hardy v. Irving Cross, No. 11-74, has not been denied by SCOTUS, as the story originally stated. This story has been corrected.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • error in article
    I am counsel for Marcus Hardy in Hardy v. Cross, No. 11-74. This article states that the cert. petition was denied, but the matter has actually been "re-listed" twice -- set for 2 additional conferences -- and has not been denied yet. We are hopeful that the Court is considering a summary reversal.

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. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  2. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  3. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  4. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  5. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

ADVERTISEMENT