ILNews

Group can't challenge high school closure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a parent and taxpayer group’s legal challenge to the closing of a Fort Wayne school, finding the decision doesn’t violate the state constitution.

In Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, et al., No. 02A04-1012-PL-746, Save Our School: Elmhurst High School sued seeking declaratory judgment against Fort Wayne Community Schools and the Fort Wayne Community Schools Board of School Trustees to force Elmhurst High School to remain open.

In March 2010, FWCS decided to close the high school for budgetary reasons and send the students to three of the other five Fort Wayne high schools. The closure was effective with the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.

Members of SOS, parents of students who attended Elmhurst and district property taxpayers, argued the three high schools the children would now attend were poorer in academic performance. FWCS filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted.

The majority of the Indiana Court of Appeals decided to address the issue even though the case is now moot as the school is closed. SOS argued the closing of Elmhurst violated the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution as well as the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause. Judges Michael Barnes and Carr Darden ruled the constitutional claims were foreclosed by Bonner ex rel. Bonner v. Daniels, 907 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. 2009), in which the Indiana Supreme Court held the Education Clause doesn’t impose upon government an affirmative duty to achieve any particular standard of resulting educational quality.

“It is our opinion that Bonner leaves no room for recognizing a claim such as SOS wants to press. FWCS is continuing to operate a ‘general and uniform’ public school system. It just happens to be operating it with one less high school than before. SOS’s claim that FWCS closed the ‘wrong’ school or should not have closed Elmhurst at all, based on a comparison of the academic merits of Elmhurst, Wayne, North Side, and South Side, is not a cognizable Education Clause claim under Bonner,” wrote Judge Barnes.

The majority also held SOS is not entitled to relief under the common law doctrine of judicial review as there is no “common law” right to review the actions of a school corporation such as FWCS.

Judge Patricia Riley concurred in result because she would declare the appeal to be moot. No effective relief could be rendered to the parties because Elmhurst is closed and the teachers and students have gone on to other schools.

“While I do not dismiss the potential public interest involved here, I would prefer to embark on a constitutional analysis after more facts are known and the precedent created by the case would be more valuable,” she wrote, pointing out that no discovery had been conducted and the summary judgment stage hadn’t even been reached.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT