I had the distinct privilege, along with more than forty other attorneys, of serving as a law clerk for Circuit Judge John Daniel Tinder. I lacked any particular awareness of Judge Tinder before his nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which was announced just weeks before I started law school. Since then, I have learned through personal interactions, news articles, 1 discussions with others, and of course, legal research, of the respect and loyalty Judge Tinder holds for the institution of the law. I. BEFORE THE ROBES Judge Tinder's experience in the practice of law began in varied circumstances-as he started as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, later served as a public defender in the Marion Superior Court, and then became the Chief Trial Deputy in the Marion County Prosecutor's Office. In these roles, Judge Tinder 2 took all manner of cases to favorable jury verdicts, including high-profile murder and rape cases. 3 As his career progressed, Judge Tinder was often compared to his father, "Honest" John G. Tinder. Perhaps through his father's experience as Marion 4 County Prosecutor from 1955-58, Judge Tinder learned the importance of the law as a foundation for society. So vigorous was John G. Tinder's prosecution of corruption, a sniper was once found in a haystack near the family home in an apparent assassination attempt. The Indianapolis Times named him Man of the 5

No abstract

After the turnover of three justices in as many years, the Indiana Supreme Court's membership remained constant during the survey period. 1 The court plowed little new ground in state constitutional law, and only time will tell whether the survey period represents the beginning of a pattern of less state constitutional activity by this "new" Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court did, however, issue an important decision applying the equal privileges and immunities clause, further explaining the significance of the requirement that statutory classifications be based on categories that possess "inherent differences" from one another. 2 The Indiana Court of Appeals applied the Indiana Constitution in the context of the education provisions in article 8, rejecting a claim for damages under the Indiana Constitution. 3 The Indiana Supreme Court applied the free expression provisions of the Indiana Constitution to a case involving threats. 4 And, as in most years, the supreme court and court of appeals issued decisions continuing to develop Indiana's unique constitutional doctrines regarding searches and seizures and multiple-punishments double jeopardy. 5 I. EQUAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES The Indiana Supreme Court broke new analytical ground applying the equal privileges and immunities clause, article 1, section 23, in Paul Stieler Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Evansville. 6 The court applied the clause to Evansville's ordinance banning smoking in most public places, including bars * Jon Laramore is executive director of Indiana Legal Services, Inc. At the time this Article was drafted, he was a partner and co-chair of the appellate advocacy group at Faegre Baker Daniels, LLP. Previously he was chief counsel to Indiana Governors Frank O'Bannon and Joseph Kernan, and he taught state constitutional law as an adjunct professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

No abstract

No abstract