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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT