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

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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT