Milburn v. Burns
| Decision Date | 29 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV |
| Citation | 1 Ariz.App. 147,400 P.2d 354 |
| Parties | Robert R. MILBURN et al., Appellants, v. Bernard W. BURNS, James E. Lindsay (Former Member), L. Alton Riggs (Present Member) and Ruth O'Neill, as members of and as constituting Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Arizona, Appellees. * 125. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Robert K. Corbin, Present County Atty., by Henry J. Florence, Deputy County Atty., Charles N. Ronan, Former County Atty., by John B. Galloway, Richard R. Brennan, Former Deputy County Attys., Phoenix, for appellees.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants at all times material to this matter were the duly appointed and acting official court reporters of the eleven Judges of the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Each judge was assigned to a numbered division of the court. The Defendants-Appellees, who are also Cross-Appellants, were the duly elected qualified and acting members of the Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, at all times material to this cause. Since the filing of the appeal Mr. James E. Lindsay has been succeeded by Mr. L. Alton Riggs as a member of the Board. Mr. Riggs is substituted for Mr. Lindsay as mandamus operates on the office rather than the individual holding that office. City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 50 Ariz. 360, 370, 72 P.2d 439 (1937).
In the year 1960 and at all times up to and including the 1961 trial of this cause, there were eleven Judges of the Superior Court for Maricopa County, each Judge having an official court reporter. Sec. 12-221 A.R.S. Each court reporter is required to be a person skilled in the are of court reporting. Sec. 12-222 A.R.S. At the general election held on the 8th day of November 1960, the people of the State of Arizona approved the extensive revisions of Article VI of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. In relation to this revision, the Governor issued his proclamation on December 8, 1960. Article VI is the judicial article. The amended Article provides in part as follows:
'* * * to discuss and resolve problems of the Court, including * * * personnel * * * problems, and any Clearly, at least after the presiding judge was designated by the Chief Justice pursuant to the Constitutional grant of authority, the communications from the presiding judge spoke with verity.
other matters relating to the overall function of the Court.' (Local Rule II(5), later Local Rule II(c).)
The record reflects that at a meeting of the judges late in the year 1960 and pursuant to the authority of A.R.S. Section 12-224 A, 2, the judges fixed the salaries of their respective court reporters in the sum of $9,600 per year effective the first Monday day in January 1961. The letter of advice from the judges to the Board of Supervisors was dated December 8, 1960 and was signed by presiding Judge Stanford. It appears from the record that more than one letter of the same date was transmitted by the presiding judge, each letter being with reference to separate action taken by the judges in relation to court problems. On December 14, 1960 the Board, under the signature of the County Manager speaking for the Board, wrote to the presiding judge. The letter of December 14th related to a number of subjects including the subject of the salaries for the court reporters. In part, the letter is as follows:
'Your letters of December 8, 1960, relative to the following subjects have been received by this office. In order that there is complete understanding between the Board of Supervisors and the Judges of the Superior Court, the following are covered in detail.
* * *
* * *
'3. It is the Board's understanding, as a result of my telephone conversation with you, that the Court Reporters salaries which were raised by the Judges to $9,600.00 per year effective the first Monday in January 1961, will be amended to read effective July 1, 1961. Due to our very tight fiscal situation this year, the Board appreciates the Judges understanding of this problem.
'If any of the above is not in complete agreement with the Superior Court Judges, please contact this office at your earliest convenience.
'Cordially yours,
Board of Supervisors
by Charles W. Miller
Charles W. Miller
County Manager'
There was testimony at the trial relative to fact of the conversations to which reference is made in the December 14th letter. There was testimony at the trial relative to one or possibly two informal luncheon meetings attended by at least two members of the Board of Supervisors, the County Manager and the judges, these being held after the above exchange of correspondence and prior to the 1st day of March 1961.
On March 2, 1961 presiding Judge Thurman wrote to the Board of Supervisors as follows:
'Honorable Bernard W. Burns
Chairman of Board of Supervisors
* * *
* * *
'Dear Mr. Burns:
'This is to advise you that the Judges of the repsective divisions of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, at their monthly meeting held on March 1, 1961, unanimously adopted the following motion:
'That the salary of the duly appointed Court Reporter of the respective divisions of the Superior Court shall have an increase of salary from $7,500.00 per year to $9,600.00 per year, which said increase in salary shall be effective as of July 1, 1961.
'This increase in salary is being called to your attention at this time in order 'Very respectfully,
that you may have the opportunity of taking care of this matter in the next budget.
/s/ E. R. Thurman
E. R. Thurman
Presiding Judge'
The next formal communication was dated June 22, 1961. This letter related to fiscal problems not only of the Superior Court but also other county fiscal problems. The letter discussed Superior Court problems in addition to the part hereinafter quoted. The letter in part is as follows:
'June 22, 1961
'To: Honorable Judge Thurman, Presiding Judge Maricopa County superior Courts
'Honorable Judge Thurman:
'After hours of deliberation, the Board of Supervisors in trying to arrive at a balanced budget for the next fiscal year, and also with the objective in mind of adopting a budget which would be sufficient under our 10% allowable increase to permit the County to complete the fiscal year without petitioning the Tax Commissioner for an emergency grant; the Board has unanimously adopted certain policy decisions which they feel will accomplish this objective. Some of these decisions, although not easy to make because many departments in Maricopa County are not now receiving sufficient funds to provide needed services, are as follows:
* * *
* * *
'4. The Board, because of the abnormal increase needed in this years Superior Court budget, has approved the salaries set by the court for Court Reporters ($9,600.00 per annum) and Adult Probation Officers ($7,500.00 per annum) to become effective December 1, 1961. The Board further agrees to immediately begin a position classification study of Bailiff's duties. When the study is completed a new salary schedule shall be adopted for Bailiffs. This study is scheduled for completion prior to October 1, 1961.
'5. The Board has budgeted funds for the operation of two new courts along with an additional Court Commissioner. Due to the fact that the date or dates which the new courts will begin operation is not known at the present time, these funds will be made available from our contingency fund as needed. It is anticipated that approximately $54,000.00 will be needed for this purpose prior to July 1, 1962.
* * *
* * *
'As before stated, all of these policy decisions have been made after hours of deliberation with the objective in mind of adopting a sound operating budget for the fiscal year 1961-62. The Board does not believe in emergency appeals to the Tax Commissioner except in an emergency. The budgets of many departments have been cut in order that the needs of the courts can be properly met.
'The Board of Supervisors, therefore, would sincerely appreciate your cooperation and your understanding of their overall fiscal and budgetary problem which is primarily the result of State law and a burgeoning County population growth.
'Cordially yours,
Board of Supervisors
'by ________
Charles W. Miller
County Manager'
The Judges did not agree to a modification of their March action, that is they did not agree to a second deferment of the effective date of the court reporters salary increase. On July 28th the court reporters filed the law suit which is now under consideration.
On August 2, 1961 the following action was taken by the Board of Supervisors:
'COUNTY OF MARICOPA
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
'STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OF MARICOPA} SS.
'I, Rhea...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson County Quarterly Court v. Judges of 28th Judicial Circuit
...Passaic Co., N.J. (1971), the issue concerned the need for additional clerks and how many would be employed. In Milburn v. Burns, 1 Ariz.App. 147, 400 P.2d 354 (1965), the court used its inherent powers to determine the time a salary increase would take Facilities and equipment have also be......
-
Holcomb v. Lee, No. E2005-01451-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 5/23/2006)
...Ct., Passaic Co., N.J. (1971), the issue concerned the need for additional clerks and how many would be employed. In Milburn v. Burns, 1 Ariz.App. 147, 400 P.2d 354 (1965), the court used its inherent powers to determine the time a salary increase would take The Anderson County Court went o......
-
Steilacoom Historical School Dist. No. 1 v. Winter
...mandamus operates on the office and therefore does not abate by a change of personnel in the office. See, e.g., Milburn v. Burns, 1 Ariz.App. 147, 148, 400 P.2d 354, 355 (1965) (citing City of Bisbee v. Cochise Cy., 50 Ariz. 360, 370, 72 P.2d 439, 443-44 (1937)); Gossett v. Hanlon, 195 So.2......
-
Patch v. Buros
...that had the case remained in the Supreme Court, that Court could have taken judicial notice of its own records. Milburn v. Burns, 1 Ariz.App. 147, 400 P.2d 354 (1965). The Court of Appeals cannot take judicial notice of the records of the Supreme Court in relation to Supreme Court number 8......