« Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 1: Report On Interview #10, Mr. William N. Riley | Main | Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 1: Report On Interview #12, Mr. Lyle R. Hardman »

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Vacancy On Supreme Court 2017 - Day 1: Report On Interview #11, Hon. Matthew C. Kincaid

This is Prof. Joel Schumm's report on the 11th interview of Day 1

Hon. Matthew C. Kincaid, Boone Superior Court 1 (photo) (application)

In response to a question from Chief Justice Rush about a situation when his oath conflicted with his personal opinion, Judge Kincaid recited a case involving attorney fees that exceeded damages in a case. He followed the law but did not feel good about it; the decision was affirmed on appeal.

In response to a question from Mr. Feighner about learning from reversals, Judge Kincaid referred about a case where he granted summary judgment against someone who had backed into a retention pond. Judge Kincaid said he agrees with Indiana’s summary judgment jurisprudence.

In response to a new question from Ms. Kitchell about areas where Indiana courts could improve, Judge Kincaid said it would be helpful to develop law in the commercial realm to help provide more guidance to businesses. Although Indiana has a great business environment, it could be improved by more predictability.

He would ask the founding fathers if they liked each other or not, noting the current division in the country.

Mr. Berger asked about appellate review under 7(B), and Judge Kincaid pointed to Justice Rucker’s opinion in Anglemyer, which clarified the law and set forth the responsibility of trial court judges and role of appellate review. Judge Kincaid said trial judges cannot take it personally when their sentences are revised, and it is important for trial court judges to give reasons the appellate court can consider.

In response to a question about dissenting opinions, Judge Kincaid said he would dissent if he believed the majority was wrong. He discussed some recent concurring opinions by Justice Rucker in cases involving Miranda rights and Stanley v. Walker. He concluded dissents make “good reading.”

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 21, 2017 03:43 PM
Posted to Vacancy on Supreme Court - 2017