ILNews

Justices rule on judicial mandate case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In its first case since the state amended its rules last year on how judicial mandates are handled, the Indiana Supreme Court has today issued a decision about a St. Joseph Superior judge’s mandate for the county to pay for multiple items he considered necessary for running the local juvenile justice system.

Justices issued a decision today in the case of In The Matter of Mandate of Funds; St. Joseph County Commissioners And St. Joseph County Council v. The Hon. Peter J. Nemeth and the St. Joseph Probate Court, No. 71S00-0912-MF-569. Justice Frank Sullivan authored the 25-page decision, which had agreement from all his colleagues but included a brief dissent from Justices Brent Dickson and Theodore Boehm on one aspect.

Overall, neither St. Joseph Superior Judge Peter Nemeth nor the county commissioners and council emerged completely victorious as the high court delved into a multitude of complex problems and issued decisions on each aspect involving land use, renovations, and staff salaries.

Last year, a special judge ruled in favor Judge Nemeth who had issued three judicial mandates directing county officials to transfer money for pay raises and improvements for the juvenile justice center.

While this case and related mandates have played out during the past few years, this case was the first to fall under Indiana Trial Rule 60.5 that the court revised in February 2009. The mandates from Judge Nemeth followed a September 2007 ruling from the Supreme Court, which held that trial judges must work with county officials and share the decision-making of how court money is spent.

The justices reversed the special judge’s dismissal of the first mandate involving land use and possible construction of a new juvenile facility, remanding it to trial on the grounds that it shouldn’t have been dismissed. Justices both affirmed and reversed in part on Mandate 2, involving various renovations and county funds needed for those projects. The justices determined that a day reporting program expansion, juvenile-transporting vans, a washing machine to clean minors’ clothing, and carpet cleaning are all court-related expenses and should be paid for. However, the justices didn’t agree that expense for a new courtroom or needed chairs could be established by the evidence on record.

On the mandated salary hikes of $60,208 for eight employees, the justices affirmed the special judge’s finding that a bookkeeper position’s increase could be mandated but reversed the ruling that had approved raises for the other seven employees.

“This record does not show a clear and present danger of impairment of the court or court-related functions with regard to the remaining seven positions,” Justice Sullivan wrote.

With that, the Supreme Court also determined that the evidence didn’t show that the raises could be paid for with the local probation fee because it didn’t clearly fund new probation services or increases.

Additionally, the justices also determined that the appellate attorney fees in this case weren’t unreasonable and the commissioners failed to argue otherwise. Each side must bear its own appellate costs, the justices ruled.

Though Justices Dickson and Boehm agreed with most of the aspects in the case, they joined in a dissent that involved the aspect about whether the land use issue should be remanded for trial. They believed the special judge was correct to dismiss that mandate.
 

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. 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