In re Conditional Admission of Bar Applicant No. E03424, 51 N.E.3d 136 (Ind. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Conditional Admission of Bar Applicant No. E03424, 51 N.E.3d 136 (Ind. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2019–2020 · 2 courts · …clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing. at p. 141 ⚠ not in text
33 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Best v. Gary Community School Corporation (innd, 2025-03-05)
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018 2022 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Best v. Gary Community School Corporation
N.D. Ind. · 2025 · confidence medium
Although the argument presented to the Court by both parties in this case is extremely sparse, review of the text of the statute itself, and bearing in mind that “there is 10 an overarching presumption that the statute is constitutional . . . [s]o in close cases, the special law will be upheld,” City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc., 119 N.E.3d 70, 84 (Ind. 2019) (citing State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136, 141, 143 (Ind. 2016)), the Court finds that Defendants are entitled to judgment on this claim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Eric Holcomb, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Indiana v. City of Bloomington
Ind. · 2020 · confidence medium
However, a statute comes “clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.” State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136, 141 (Ind. 2016).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights of A.R. and M.R. (Minor Children), S.R. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Mother now appeals. [3] Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that Indiana’s burden of proof standard for termination of parental rights is unconstitutional.1 When we review the constitutionality of an Indiana statute, the statute comes before us afresh, “‘clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing.’” State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136, 141 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Boehm v. Town of St.
examined Cited as authority (rule) City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ind. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Id. at 142-43 (footnotes omitted).
cited Cited "see" Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City Of Gary, Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136, 141 (Ind. 2016); Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d at 690 .
examined Cited "see" City of Fishers, Indiana v. Dish Network L.L.C. (4×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Buncich, 51 N.E.3d 136, 141 (Ind. 2016); City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 126 N.E.3d 813 , 825– 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Mun.
examined Cited "see" City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Properties, Inc. and State of Indiana (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ind. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Buncich , 51 N.E.3d at 143 ; Lake Superior Court , 820 N.E.2d at 1250 ; Williams , 724 N.E.2d at 1086 ; Hoovler , 668 N.E.2d at 1235 ; Moseley , 643 N.E.2d at 301 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Conditional Admission of Bar Applicant No. E03424, Adam J. SPERAW
No. 94S00-1602-BL-92.
Indiana Supreme Court.
Mar 21, 2016.
51 N.E.3d 136
2016 Ind. LEXIS 213
2016 WL 1553830
Published

Published Order Revoking Conditional License to Practice Law

Adam J. Speraw (“Respondent”) was conditionally admitted to the Indiana Bar on October 19, 2010, pursuant to an agreement with the State Board of Law Examiners (“Board”). The agreement required, among other things, that Respondent refrain from having any alcohol-related incidents and report to the Board quarterly on his compliance with the agreement.

On July 4, 2012, Respondent crashed when driving while intoxicated, which constituted a violation of the conditions of his agreement and the basis for his subsequent plea of guilty to reckless driving. Respondent also violated the agreement by failing to report the incident as required. Eventually, a panel of the Board held an evidentiary hearing after which it made findings concerning these violations.

Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 12, section 10, the Board then certified the findings and filed a petition recommending that Respondent’s conditional admission be revoked and that he not even be eligible for readmission for eighteen months. Respondent filed a response opposing that petition.

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS the Board’s petition. The license of Adam J. Speraw to practice law in Indiana should be, and hereby is, REVOKED, effective immediately. Further, Mr. Speraw shall not even be eligible for readmission to the Bar of Indiana for eighteen months after the date of this order.

All Justices concur.