ILNews

Justices order mandate writ against court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a relator's verified petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition against a Grant Superior judge and the clerk.

In the order dated Feb. 23 and posted today, State of Indiana ex rel. John L. Smith, Relator v. The Grant Superior Court No. 2, et al., No. 27S00-0812-OR-765,
Smith sought relief, alleging Grant Superior Judge Randall L. Johnson heard certain motions but failed to rule within the 30-day time limit in Ind. Trial Rule 53.1(A). Smith also alleged he filed a praecipe for withdrawal and clerk J. Mark Florence failed in his duty to determine a delay in ruling and withdraw the case from Judge Johnson.

Grant Superior Court No. 2 heard certain motions June 10, 2008, but failed to rule on those motions within 30 days, according to the order. On Aug. 15, the trial court suspended operations in the Grant County Courthouse because of health concerns related to mold and other conditions of the courthouse, but the court, Judge Johnson and Florence don't argue the emergency conditions or the Administrative Rule 17 Order issued by the Supreme Court in September relieves the trial court of its obligation to rule in a timely manner.

The high court unanimously directed Judge Johnson to vacate any orders issued after Smith's filing of praecipe Oct. 21, 2008, and to cease exercising jurisdiction over the case except for administrative duties to effectuate the writ. Florence is directed to give written notice to Judge Johnson and the Supreme Court that submission of the cause has been withdrawn in accordance to T.R. 53.1(E)(2). Judge Johnson also has to file a written report once an order appointing a special judge has been issued.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT