ILNews

Terre Haute attorney dies

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Terre Haute attorney and former member of the Indiana House of Representatives died Monday.

John A. Kesler Sr., 87, was an attorney in Terre Haute for nearly 60 years. He was admitted to the Indiana and Illinois bars in 1951 after receiving his J.D. from Indiana University School of Law. He served in the House of Representatives from 1969 to 1973.

Kesler also served as probate commissioner of the Vigo Circuit Court and as Vigo County chief deputy prosecutor. He was a member of the American Bar Association, American Trial Lawyers Association, Indiana State Bar Association and Terre Haute Bar Association.

He was a licensed pilot and served in the South Pacific in the U.S. Army during World War II, receiving four Bronze Stars. Kesler was active in veterans’ affairs and other community organizations. He was commissioned as a Sagamore of the Wabash by then-Gov. Joseph Kernan.

He is survived by his wife, Maxine Weaver Kesler; children Nicki Herrington, Brad (Debby) Kesler, and John (Diana) Kesler II; brother Hurst (Jean) Kesler; nine grandchildren; six great-grandchildren; and many nieces, nephews, and cousins.

Funeral services are at 1 p.m. Thursday with visitation an hour prior to services at Fitzpatrick Funeral Home, 220 N. Third St., West Terre Haute.
 

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT