Roger Owen DeBruler died on February 13, 2017, at the age of eighty-two. He was the longest serving justice on the Indiana Supreme Court during the twentieth century – the third longest serving justice ever – and his influence on Indiana jurisprudence is pervasive. I had the great good fortune to serve on the Court during the final three years of his tenure and am honored that the Indiana Law Review has asked me to prepare a tribute to him for publication.
The Indiana Law Review is pleased to announce the following members have been selected for its Volume 52 Editorial Board. We look forward to their leadership and contributions to legal scholarship throughout the 2018-19 academic year. Congratulations!
J. Mitchell Tanner, Editor-in-Chief
Nicole Dobias, Executive Managing Editor
Riley Parr, Executive Notes Editor
Carla Uhlarik, Senior Executive Editor
Courtney Abshire, Executive Articles Editor
Amelia Marvel, Executive Articles Editor
Sarah Correll, Symposium Editor
Henry Robison, Executive Online Editor
Note Development Editors:
Thomas Buchanan
Amy Burbrink
Christopher Frank
Elizabeth Hyde
Articles Editors:
Michael Daniells
Alyssa Devine
Charles Richert
E. Ryan Shouse
There is convincing evidence that persons in nursing homes, even persons with dementia in its later stages, benefit physically, mentally, and emotionally from close contact with loved ones, including conversation, touch, hugs and embraces, kissing, and sex. Nevertheless, nursing homes often discourage ongoing intimate relationships because of logistical, financial, and other considerations.
At its core, public health is concerned with promoting and protecting the health of populations. However, public health has often times been used to subvert the very same goals it is designed to achieve.
I pondered the question that their faculty at the law school had already answered—what role should the personal ethics and morality of a law professor play in teaching?
[T]he Guidelines’ assumption that many types of pharmaceutical inventions are inherently obvious and undeserving of patent protection is incorrect and based on an oversimplified view of how these inventions come about. This Article provides an evidence-based response to the Guidelines that refutes, or at least qualifies, some of the significant conclusions and recommendations set forth by its author.
