Annual address praises court activity despite economy, changing times
Even though times are tough, the Indiana chief justice says the Hoosier judiciary remains strong and continues to be a leader that other states look to as an example.
Even though times are tough, the Indiana chief justice says the Hoosier judiciary remains strong and continues to be a leader that other states look to as an example.
Even though times are tough, the Indiana chief justice says the Hoosier judiciary remains strong and continues to be a leader that other states look to as an example.
Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard will give his 24th State of the Judiciary Wednesday in the Indiana House Chambers.
Faults in the state’s mental health system can’t be used to justify an insanity defense being rejected in favor of a different sentence that will keep a person locked up, an Indiana Supreme Court majority ruled.
Indiana’s justices couldn’t agree on whether they should even rule on a case involving an athlete’s eligibility in high school when the girl is now playing college basketball.
A divided Indiana Supreme Court has held that state statute dictates that the use of a firearm can be the grounds for a sentence enhancement that doesn’t constitute a double jeopardy violation.
Mark Massa, the Republican candidate for Marion County prosecutor, is the new chairman of the Alcohol & Tobacco Commission. Gov. Mitch Daniels announced the appointment Thursday.
The practice of naming a building after someone is a longstanding tradition throughout the country, but one of the most common practices in those renamings is waiting until someone dies to dedicate that place.
The same day it heard arguments about the dissolution of a Brown County fire district, the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the intermediate court’s ruling on the case because of a 2-2 division caused by the recusal of Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.
Today is the 2011 Organization Day for Indiana lawmakers, typically a ceremonial day. But one tradition was slightly altered due to Secretary of State Todd Rokita’s absence.
The Indiana Supreme Court has decided not to take the case of a man who claimed he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
The Indiana Supreme Court denied a request for a writ of mandamus Friday, but noted that the attorneys and court involved had failed to act as professionally as they should regarding schedules.
Photos from the 2010 Randall T. Shepard Award Dinner.
Federal grants from the Department of Justice will allow for enhancements to Indiana’s Protective Order Registry, including alerting victims by e-mail or text when an order is about to expire.
As part of the Evansville Bar Association’s activities to commemorate its 100th anniversary, which will take place as part of their Law Day celebration in April 2011, the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation and the EBA announced today they will collaborate on a video of the last 100 years of the legal community in southwestern Indiana.
The high court split on whether an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability policy covers an insured contract for faulty workmanship of its subcontractor.
The Indiana Supreme Court held that employer-provided health-insurance benefits constitute an asset once they have vested in a party to the marriage, and addressed for the first time the possible methods of valuing these benefits in marriage dissolution. This conclusion led one justice to dissent because it disrupts existing dissolution property division law.
A Terre Haute attorney wants the nation’s highest court to review two appellate cases out of Indiana and Wisconsin that uphold judicial canons and pose free speech questions about what judicial candidates can say or do when campaigning for office.
The Indiana Supreme Court ordered the post-conviction court to hold a new hearing for a Mexican man who claimed he didn’t mean to plead guilty to two felonies and did so only because of faulty interpreting in court.
Three Indiana Supreme Court justices created a new requirement as an exercise of supervisory powers when it comes to informing future defendants about the dangers of proceeding pro se, leaving two justices to dissent because the new requirement provides no guidance as to what trial courts must do or say.