Indiana's New Chief Justice

[Kirk Freeman]

Is Loretta Rush of Lafayette, Indiana. Former judge Tippecanoe Superior Court III.

Indiana's first female Chief Justice.

Loretta Rush named first female chief justice of Indiana Supreme Court

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I'm way behind the times - when did Shepard retire?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

In March of 2012. Brent Dickson, also of Lafayette, became Chief. Rush replaced Sullivan who retired at the end of 2012.

 

[WabashMX5]

For reasons Kirk knows, I'm not exactly an unbiased observer--but I'm very pleased about this, because I have tremendous respect for Justice Rush. There were no bad choices, but she was a very good one.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Don't worry, Wabash, your secret identity is safe.

 

[jedi]

So is she pro-2A?

 

[indiucky]

Don't worry, Wabash, your secret identity is safe.

Wow....Batman posts on INGO....SWEET....

 

[rambone]

Do we know anything about this person other than her gender? The article pointed that out a half-dozen times but offered no other facts.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Loretta H. Rush - Judgepedia

 

[Redskinsfan]

Thanks Kirk for the link to "Judgepedia", I did not know it existed. I have been complaining that judges are elected and very few people know anything about them. The site you gave has useful information.

 

[rambone]

Thank you Kirk.

So we know that she makes $160,000 and which courts she sat on previously. That's OK for a resume, but not quite what I was looking for.

I'm interested in knowing the kind of decisions she makes. What issues has she been on the right side and wrong side of? Why is anyone happy about the nomination?

 

[T.Lex]

I'm interested in knowing the kind of decisions she makes. What issues has she been on the right side and wrong side of? Why is anyone happy about the nomination?

This link might not work, but the idea is to search Ind. Sup. Ct. decisions written by her:
Search Results For: ""Rush, Justice"" :: Justia Law

If you go to:
2014 :: Indiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: Indiana Law :: US Law :: Justia

And enter "Rush, Justice" in the search box (including the quotes), it should deliver the cases where she wrote an opinion - either the lead or concurrence/dissent. It should give you a flavor of her writings.

 

[rambone]

Thanks T.Lex.

 

[rambone]

A man granted police permission to enter an apartment to check on a child. Police then performed an involuntary search of his pockets. They then arrest him for possessing contraband plants.

Justice Rush sided against the 4th Amendment allowing the police search.

McIlquham v. State :: 2014 :: Indiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia



Loretta Rush: 0/1

 

[T.Lex]

haha

Interestingly, for purposes of a gun forum, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender and acquitted of the marijuana dealing.

The court then acquitted Defendant of dealing marijuana, found him guilty of the firearm and paraphernalia charges, accepted his guilty pleas to the neglect and marijuana - possession charges, and sentenced him to a total of six years.

...

Defendant admitted that the drugs and the gun were his and that Mother was unaware of them.

Besides, they consented to the search.

(You crack me up sometimes.)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

McIlquham was unanimous. Both I/11 and the 4th Amendment do not apply as to consent.

Easy fix, don't let the police into your apartment when you are doing dope and letting children run feral.

Besides, they consented to the search.

I see you are behind in your L. Neil Smith legal reading.

 

[rambone]

Justice Rush recognizes that DCS was being used to torment an innocent family, reverses CHINS decision.

IN THE MATTER OF S.D., ALLEGED TO BE A CHILD IN NEED OF SERVICES

Child in need of services (CHINS) cases aim to help families in crisis—to protect children, not punish parents. Our focus, then, is on the best interests of the child and whether the child needs help that the parent will not be willing or able to provide—not whether the parent is somehow “guilty” or “deserves” a CHINS adjudication. But that help comes not by invitation, but compulsion—imposing the court’s “coercive intervention” into family life. And a CHINS adjudication may have long-lasting collateral consequences for the family. The intrusion of a CHINS judgment, then, must be reserved for families who cannot meet those needs without coercion—not those who merely have difficulty doing so.

Here, the evidence reflects that Mother had difficulty meeting the demands of a situation that would test the mettle of any parent—but not that she would be unable to correct her one lingering issue without the “coercive intervention of the court.” DCS’s desire to help this struggling family was understandable, but the facts simply do not justify subjecting this family to State compulsion. We therefore reverse the trial court.

Loretta Rush +1

 

[rambone]

haha

Interestingly, for purposes of a gun forum, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a serious violent offender and acquitted of the marijuana dealing.


Besides, they consented to the search.

(You crack me up sometimes.)

Ask me if I think "shall not be infringed" allows the government to ban gun possession to certain classes of people.

 

[T.Lex]

Fair enough.

I just thought your omission of the gun-related stuff was funny.

 

[rambone]

Fair enough.

I just thought your omission of the gun-related stuff was funny.

From my understanding that discovery came from an apartment search that was granted by the girlfriend (owner).

Not relevant to the involuntary search of the pockets.