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is directed to give written notice to Judge Johnson and the Supreme Court that submission of the cause has been withdrawn in accordance to T.R. 53.1(E)(2).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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT