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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT