Legal Precedent and Judicial Ascension: Justice Derek R. Molter's Role in Rush v. Costco

What a deal....

Did you ever wonder who gets elevated to the state's highest court or why?

In 2022, the Indiana Court of Appeals delivered a significant ruling in Rush v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a case involving James A. Rush's claim against Costco for damages to his diesel vehicle's fuel injectors. The court found in favor of Mr. Rush, awarding him $2,125.17 for the damages incurred due to allegedly improper fuel composition. Sounds like a small claims case but it was appealed and Chief Justice's spouse wins again.

The panel's decision was authored by a Judge Derek R. Molter, who, in June 2022, then was appointed to the Indiana Supreme Court by Governor Eric Holcomb. Molter's appointment filled the vacancy left by Justice Steven David's retirement and marked a significant step in his judicial career. Was it a quid pro quo? We all know Holcomb did whatever Rush wanted him to do.

Justice Molter's career trajectory is notable.

Before his appointment to the Supreme Court, he served on the Indiana Court of Appeals, where he authored the opinion in the Rush decision, his legal education includes his graduation from Indiana University Maurer School of Law in 2007. Go figure. And he has held positions in both private practice, most notably with ICE MILLER.

The Rush case stands out not only for its legal implications but also for the role it played in propelling Judge Molter to the state's highest court. His decision in this case, along with his broader judicial record, contributed to his reputation as a thoughtful and effective jurist, leading to his celebrated appointment to the Indiana Supreme Court. Celebrated by Chief Justice Loretta Rush; watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZjwOf0rA1Q

In the years following his appointment, Justice Molter has continued to influence Indiana's legal landscape in Attorney Disciplinary cases. Notably, in 2025, he authored a majority opinion in a disciplinary matter involving Attorney General Todd Rokita, where the court appointed a three-member hearing panel—a rare occurrence in attorney discipline cases--giving a clear advantage to Rokita, not offered to others in violation of the Equal Protection Clause -- but then he was likely told what to rule, again. Some people valued a career even if mared by the truely unethical conduct and bribery of sorts.

Justice Molter's journey from authoring a pivotal appellate decision to serving on the Indiana Supreme Court underscores the significant impact that appellate rulings can have on a judge's career and on the development of state jurisprudence. Right?! No, that is you must kiss the ring or risk getting attacked by the some of the smallest legal minds ever to hold power in the history of this "great" state.