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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT