These days, we are hearing regularly about gag orders, contempt of court and other measures regarding a certain former president. There is a fine line between criticizing a court and insulting a judge — and the current examples may become important.
The year 2023 marks the 36th time the National Center for State Courts has published its annual “Trends in State Courts” report.
The unique tale of Section 1983 is an intriguing history of jurisprudence, social issues and federalism. The balance between central government power and individual rights has often been the rationale of applying Section 1983 or not.
“Truth” in courts of law is whatever the factfinder decides. This has often bothered me, of course, but has not stopped me from doing it for over 25 years.
The following is an interview with Justice Solomon Sabia, the only reportedly totally independent judge in the Western Hemisphere.
There was a time, not so long ago, when judges were “potted plants.” The judicial role was widely reserved, somewhat withdrawn, apart from public statement or positions, and any work to change the legal system was considered improper. Changing standards and challenging times seem to have changed all that.
As COVID-19 numbers descend, we are left with a plethora of mixed feelings. Many are overwhelmed with joy and giddiness. Some are still numb and can’t feel anything — yet. And others are trying to make sense of the past two years and the lasting realities that lay ahead. Our courts and judges fit into the latter category.
What do Saint Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers, and Indiana’s commercial courts have in common? They both made history by the effective streamlining of business law cases.
Last year, the National Judicial College surveyed judges regarding their recommended books. Some were expected, but others were surprising.
Everyone is now familiar with the ongoing effects of COVID-19 upon how the world is working, and some possible future scenarios both in the legal profession and beyond. The question for judges at every level is, “Do we ever need in-person proceedings?”
Despite serious travails during our history, presidential inaugurations seem to allow for a pause and some national confidence. Noting this recently, it is perhaps well that we set briefly aside our current concerns and allow some reflection to lighten us up and to observe the critical importance of the judicial branch.
Character is not an aspiration for lawyers, it is a requirement. It is not an exception, it is the rule. No other profession in the world carries such a heavy obligation because the consequences are so great if we fail.
The pandemic has become a mother of invention. But when we return, as we are all committed, to whatever “new normal,” let’s pledge as much “in-person” as the ongoing 21st century court system will allow.
As his judging life comes to a crossroads, Judge John Baker sees similarities between his first days in small claims court and his last days now on the Court of Appeals.
I have always wanted to be a basketball referee. Throughout my sports fan life, I have often seen refs that were good, and some that were not so good. As a new lawyer many years ago, and through 16 years of pre-bench practice, I also saw judges who were good and some who were not so good. I always made mental notes about the essential qualities of both kinds of judges for my future reference.
The Judicial Nominating Commission in August reappointed Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush for another term. It was hardly a surprise. Chief Justice Rush is a special kind of judge. Recently, she took time to reflect on her work and remarkable career.
In 2017, the Legal Services Corporation found 86 percent of civil legal problems of low-income Americans receive no or inadequate help. So what, if anything, should judges do when faced with people in court day after day without lawyers?
Marion Superior Judge David J. Dreyer channels his inner James Joyce for observations about a day in the life of a trial court judge.