Appellate court rules in judge's favor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Trial courts don’t have the authority to issue orders against other courts and judges mandating that they stop certain practices, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Toshiano Ishii, Matthew Stone, Greg Hardin, Lisa Hardin, et al. v. The Hon. William E. Young, Judge, No. 49A02-1103-PL-316, the appellate court affirmed a motion to dismiss that Special Judge Matthew Hanson from Morgan County granted in favor of Marion Superior Judge William Young.

Hanson had been appointed to hear the case involving six individuals who alleged they were on the receiving end of Young’s improper traffic court practices, which included threatening additional fines on them if they exercised their right to a trial in his court. Those litigants sued Young, but only sought relief for future cases and not their specific situations. They requested that Hanson prohibit Young from improperly fining people. They also asked the judge to find that Young cannot bar the general public from attending court sessions and defendants with health problems should be allowed to return to court if they left and be able to carry snacks, water and medication if needed. Hanson found he didn’t have jurisdiction to issue a mandate or injunction against Young because that authority belonged solely to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The appellate court rejected the arguments that the Indiana Constitution and state appellate and original action rules allow for trial judges to issue a writ of mandamus or prohibition against another trial court judge relating to matters that aren’t connected to the trial court’s jurisdiction. The appellate panel cited both Indiana Constitution Article 7, Section 4 and Indiana Appellate Rule 4(B)(3) that gives the justices exclusive jurisdiction.

Since the three-judge panel affirmed Hanson’s order on grounds relating to jurisdiction, the appellate judges didn’t address the parties’ arguments relating to standing and mootness. The traffic court litigants who sued Young in this case were not involved in the disciplinary action that was filed against Young last year, but it involved the same conduct. The Supreme Court in February suspended Young for 30 days without pay, and the trial judge has since returned to the bench.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?