ILNews

Supreme Court grants writ of mandamus

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court justices unanimously voted to grant a permanent writ of mandamus and prohibition in a case out of Howard Superior Court.

Relators Jeffrey Scott Bousum and Regina Lee Bousum alleged Judge Stephen M. Jessup of Howard Superior Court 2 failed to rule on motions for summary judgment within the Trial Rule 53.1 time limits after a hearing on those motions. They also allege trial court clerk Mona L. Myers failed in her duty to withdraw the case from the trial court upon the filing of the relators' praecipe and to transmit the case to the Supreme Court for the appointment of a special judge.

In the order from Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed Judge Jessup to vacate any orders or judgment issued after the filing of the praecipe on June 1, 2009, and to stop exercising jurisdiction over the case except for administrative tasks needed to execute the writ. Clerk Myers is to give written notice to the judge and the Supreme Court that the submission of the case has been withdrawn.

The judge must also file a written report pursuant to Trial Rules 53.1(F) and 53.2(F) once the clerk complies with Trial Rule 53.1(E)(2) and the high court issues an order appointing a special judge. The writ is effective immediately.

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. 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