« Law - New Bush executive order gives the White House much greater control over the rules and guidance documents. | Main | Ind. Decisions - Judge declares mistrial when juror brings newspaper into jury room »

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 6 today (and 13 NFP)

(Link to Cases):

For publication opinions today (6):

J. Bradley King and Krisi Robertson in their official Governmental capacities as Co-directors of the Indiana Election Division, et al. v. Leo T. Burns, et al. is a case about which the ILB posted a number of entries late last year. Here is a quote from a Mix 102 story out of Logansport dated Sept. 25, 2005:

Cass County Circuit Court Judge Julian Ridlen has issued a permanent injunction that translates into Democrat Leo Burns' name being placed onto the fall election ballot.

Burns is running for Circuit Court judge, but filed suit in Ridlen's court after his candidacy was not certified by the Indiana Election Division. The state office claimed that the necessary paperwork for Burns' candidacy was filed in the wrong office.

The paperwork was filed in the Cass County Clerk's Office by Democratic Chairman Matt Meagher, not in Indianapolis, where the information is supposed to be filed.

In the 8-page Court of Appeals ruling today, Judge Barnes concludes:
There is no allegation here of any fraud in Burns’s candidacy or in the November 7 general election, nor any assertion or evidence that he failed to comply with every statute governing elections and qualifications for a circuit court judge, save one. However, nothing in Indiana Code Section 3-13-1-15 expressly states that a failure to strictly comply with it voids the result of an election or that the place of filing of the CAN-29 form is an essential element of an election. Instead, it is apparent that the statute’s primary purpose is to provide a means for orderly and timely preparation of ballots for a general election. Once the ballots are in fact prepared and an election is held using those ballots, it would defeat the purpose of elections laws generally to overturn the results of the election and disenfranchise the voters who used the ballots.

Burns clearly was the Democratic Party’s chosen candidate for Cass County Circuit Court judge. That choice was communicated accurately to Cass County voters. They elected Burns to office. He is qualified to hold that office. The “eminently practical doctrine” formally know as “‘de minimis non curat lex’ . . . proclaims that the law does not redress trifles.” D & M Healthcare, Inc. v. Kernan, 800 N.E.2d 898, 900 (Ind. 2003). “[I]t is the courts’ way of saying ‘So what?’” Id. If there is no “what” and no practical consequences flowing from the technical violation of some law, the courts do not provide relief to ordinary litigants. Id. At this point, the Division can point to no practical consequences of Burns’s CAN-29 form having been filed with the Cass County clerk rather than the Division. Under the holdings of cases such as Lumm and Roeschlein, as well as the general doctrine of “de minimis non curat lex,” we decline to reverse the trial court’s granting of the permanent injunction requiring Burns’ placement on the ballot, the effect of which would be also to reverse the results of the November 7, 2006 general election.

Conclusion. We decline to disenfranchise the voters of Cass County by overturning their decision that Burns should be their circuit court judge, based on a technical violation of a law that had no practical effect on the validity of the November 7, 2006 general election. We affirm.

Note that D&M Healthcare, cited in the above opinion, is a Supreme Court case the ILB wrote quite a lot about in 2003, a case where the validity of a Governor's veto and whether it complied strictly with the requirements of Constitution (i.e. the letter of the law), was at issue. Here is a list of the ILB's 2003 entries, unfortunately they will not be accessible again until the ILB does some tweaking.

Michael M. McCalment v. Eli Lilly and Company - employment issues, more coming

Marietta Squibb v. State of Indiana, ex rel. O. Wayne Davis, Indiana Securities Commissioner

Stephen Alter v. State of Indiana - "Indeed, none of the Criminal Rule 4(C) provisions by which the State may charge certain delays to the defendant occurred in the instant case, yet the State and trial court permitted this case to languish for more than seven months following the initial trial date. We therefore conclude, pursuant to the provisions of Criminal Rule 4, that any delays in Alter’s case were chargeable to the State, and that the trial court therefore erred in denying Alter’s motion for discharge on the basis that the State failed to try him within one year. See Young, 765 N.E.2d at 678-79. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to the trial court to grant Alter’s motion for discharge."

Randy L. Adams v. Sand Creek, Inc., et al. - more coming

Bruce Carr v. Joseph Pearman - "Major stands for the proposition that an attorney may be entitled to quantum meruit recovery for his or her work despite the fact that the attorney has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by failing to obtain a written contingency fee agreement. Nowhere does Major hold that an oral contingency fee agreement, which violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, is illegal or void. Rather, the majority in Major holds that such an agreement is “invalid” but that the attorney may recover under quantum meruit."

NFP civil opinions today (4):

Anne Elizabeth Keeney v. Robert O. Caruthers, Jr. (NFP)

Involuntary Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of F.D., O.D. S.D., and Angela Drake and Timothy Drake v. Miami Co. Dept. of Child Services (NFP)

David A. Wittenstein v. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway, LLC (NFP)

Roger D. Edwards v. Mary L. Edwards (NFP)

NFP criminal opinions today (9):

David McGuire v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jerry Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Walter Williams v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tim L. Godby v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Althirty Hunter v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Gerald Osborne v. State of Indiana (NFP)

James Sapp v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Frank C. Biederstadt v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on January 31, 2007 12:51 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions