ILNews

COA rules on fireworks wholesalers' challenge

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals ruling today that firework wholesalers have an administrative process to determine whether Indiana Code section 22-11-14-5 requires fireworks wholesalers to obtain certificates of compliance for each location reinforces an earlier Supreme Court decision on the matter.

In Roger Johnson, as Indiana State Fire Marshal v. Patriotic Fireworks, Inc. et al., the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the fire marshal's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints of Patriotic Fireworks and other fireworks wholesalers and remanded with instructions. The fireworks wholesalers challenged the fire marshal's requirement that fireworks wholesalers with multiple locations must obtain separate certificates of compliance for each location they operate.

At issue is whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss Patriotic's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals, relying on Johnson v. Celebration Fireworks, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 979, 984 (Ind. 2005), found the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.

In 1997, Patriotic filed a complaint in Marion Superior Court challenging the fire marshal's interpretation of Indiana Code 22-11-14-5 without first pursuing administrative review. Nine similar cases were consolidated with Patriotic's case.

In November 2005, the state filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases, saying the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Patriotic failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing the complaint. Patriotic argued the trial court should dismiss the state's argument because no administrative review existed. In April 2006, the trial court denied the state's motion for reconsideration and granted its motion to certify an interlocutory order for immediate appeal.

Citing Johnson, the Court of Appeals disagreed with Patriotic's claims that no administrative remedy existed. In Johnson, Celebration Fireworks also did not first seek administrative review through the Fire Prevention and Building Safety Commission when challenging the same code. The Supreme Court found the issue whether wholesalers with multiple locations were required to obtain separate certificates for compliance can be properly resolved through the administrative process. In Johnson, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded it with instructions to dismiss Celebration's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Because Patriotic did not first pursue administrative review before being granted access to the trial court for judicial review, the Court of Appeals ruled the trial court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with instructions that Patriotic's complaint be dismissed.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT