Barr v. State, 1-1079A265

Decision Date25 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 1-1079A265,1-1079A265
Citation400 N.E.2d 1149
PartiesCharles E. BARR, Paul G. Finch, and Charles Wm. Rice, Appellants (Plaintiff Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Defendant Below).
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Joseph F. Quill, Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

Charles E. Barr, Paul G. Finch and Charles Wm. Rice (hereinafter collectively referred to as Conservation Officers) brought an action against the State of Indiana (State) on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated for the payment of wages for hours that they were required to work on legal holidays. The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

A summary judgment is rendered when after reviewing all the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file along with affidavits and testimony, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56(c). On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, the only issues are whether the trial court correctly applied the law and whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. Tekulve v. Turner, (1979) Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 673. In addition, any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of a material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hale v. Peabody Coal Company, (1976) Ind.App., 343 N.E.2d 316. Further, even where the facts are not disputed, summary judgment is improper where there may be disagreements as to the inferences to be drawn from these facts. Palmer v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 363 N.E.2d 1245.

It is apparent from the lack of case law authority cited in both briefs and from our own independent research, that there has not been much litigation in this area. Consequently, we base our decision on a plain reading of the statutes and appropriate rules and regulations.

When an appellate court is required to construe a statute, the court must give effect to the legislative intent. The court must also construe the statute according to its plain meaning, and cannot apply a construction which is not in accordance with the clear and express purpose of the statute. Also, a statute which is specific in its meaning will control over one that is general in its meaning. Gonser v. Board of Commissioners For Owen County, (1978) Ind.App., 378 N.E.2d 425. It is also the responsibility of an appellate court to make its determination from a reading of the statute in its entirety, rather than giving a strict and literal meaning to any particular section. Matter of Big Raccoon Conservancy District, (1977) Ind.App., 363 N.E.2d 1004. With these basic precepts in mind, we proceed to an analysis of the pertinent statutes and rules and regulations.

As we understand Conservation Officers argument, they contend that Ind.Code 1-1-9-1 establishes certain legal holidays for state employees, that they are hourly non-merit employees as described in Ind.Code 5-10-6-1, and that they have been required to work on these legal holidays. Therefore, Conservation Officers allege that they are entitled to either additional pay or compensatory time off.

While it is true that the governor is permitted to grant hourly basis employees vacation with pay and paid holidays under IC 5-10-6-1, that capability is purely discretionary and is therefore of no aid to Conservation Officers. Similarly, IC 1-1- 9-1 is of no aid to Conservation Officers, as that section only lists those days that are considered legal holidays within the state...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Coghill v. Badger
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 13 Abril 1981
    ...statutory provisions take priority over non-specific provisions. Ezzell v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 268, 205 N.E.2d 145; Barr v. State (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1149; Gonser v. Board of Commissioners (1978), Ind.App., 378 N.E.2d Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5-3 8 simply immunizes a governmental uni......
  • Scott v. Anderson Newspapers, Inc., 4-583A158
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 29 Abril 1985
    ...each part thereof, if reasonably possible. Edward Rose of Indiana v. Fountain (1982), Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 543, 545; Barr v. State (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1149, 1150; Ind. Alcoholic Bev. Comm. v. State ex rel. Harmon (1976), 171 Ind.App. 156, 355 N.E.2d 450, 454; 26 Ind. Law Encycloped......
  • Baker v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 8 Octubre 1985
    ...than viewing this sentence in isolation. Edward Rose of Indiana v. Fountain (1982), Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 543, 545; Barr v. State (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1149, 1150. Further, we must read statutes on the same subject together so as to harmonize and give effect to each. Edward Rose of In......
  • Carroll v. Lordy
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 20 Enero 1982
    ...State University Board of Trustees, (1978) Ind.App., 378 N.E.2d 900, 902. Any doubts are resolved against the movant. Barr v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1149, 1150. Although Carroll did not oppose the motion for summary judgment this does not entitle Lordy to an automatic summary ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT