ILNews

Supreme Court will have 18-day gap between justices

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will be missing one of its five members for almost three weeks as its new justice wraps up remaining business on the Boone Circuit Court before taking the appellate bench.

Judge Steven David is scheduled to join the state’s highest court on Oct. 18, which means the court will see an 18-day gap during which the court will have only four justices following Justice Theodore Boehm’s retirement ceremony on Thursday.

As a trial judge serving on the Boone Circuit Court, Judge David is finishing his work there following his appointment by Gov. Mitch Daniels. A one-hour investiture ceremony is planned for 10:30 a.m. Oct. 18, and the governor and chief justice both plan to speak.

While the court will still conduct business as usual, the court’s online calendar shows that no oral arguments are scheduled for the time when only four justices will be on the bench.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has experienced a transitional gap between justices. During the last turnover in 1999, Justice Myra Selby left the bench on Oct. 7 and Justice Robert D. Rucker joined from the intermediate appellate bench on Nov. 19. Court records show past justices joined the same day as their predecessors were leaving, or that some overlap existed. Before that, the last gap between justices would have been in 1968 when Justice Donald Mote’s final day was Sept. 17 and Justice Roger DeBruler began on Sept. 30. Another gap came when Justice Walter Myers ended his term June 2, 1967, and Justice David Lewis didn’t start until June 21, 1967.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT