ILNews

Judge wins in mandate action

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A special judge has ruled in favor of St. Joseph Probate Judge Peter Nemeth, who'd issued a judicial mandate earlier this year directing county officials to transfer money for pay raises and improvements for the juvenile justice center.

In a 19-page judgment issued this morning, Valparaiso attorney and special judge William Satterlee ruled that officials must release about $355,000 from the county fund to pay for salary hikes and improvements at the county's Juvenile Justice Center. The ruling says that the funding is not only necessary for the operation of the court and related functions, but that it will not represent a financial burden to the county.

Judge Nemeth had issued a judicial mandate in early February, directing the county council and commissioners to appropriate about $355,000. He'd warned council members during the past year about the mandate possibility, saying he'd use that power if the council didn't approve about $79,000 in raises for his court staff. The council had denied the raises in the past two years, despite Judge Nemeth's emphasis that his employees are paid far less than their counterparts in other county courts and that he could issue the raises without using tax money. Instead, the judge wanted to use probation user fees to give raises to those eight employees.

The other money was set aside after Judge Nemeth had reduced the facility's number of beds late last year from 90 to 63.

As special judge, Satterlee held a two-day hearing on the issue in September and all parties submitted their closing briefs by Oct. 13.

"It's unfortunate that we had to go through this," Judge Nemeth said today. "The money was already there, and all we had to do was transfer it, and it wouldn't have cost the county taxpayers a dime. I don't understand the arbitrary capriciousness of our county officials, but this ruling shows our law is above that."

This mandate follows a September 2007 ruling from the Indiana Supreme Court, which held that trial judges must work with county officials and share the decision-making of how court money is spent. An interim legislative committee studied the issue this past summer and fall, but recommended that the General Assembly should defer any action on Indiana Trial Rule 60.5 while the state's highest court continues to respond by rule adoption.

Judge Nemeth pointed out that his mandate in February came on the same day when the Indiana Supreme Court revised Trial Rule 60.5, which governs judicial mandate cases and allowed for attorneys to serve as special judges rather than another sitting judge. His case was the first to utilize that new rule, he said.

County officials are able to appeal to the state's appellate courts, but the county's legal counsel couldn't immediately be reached to comment on whether that will happen.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT