Hardesty v. Bolerjack
Citation | 440 N.E.2d 490 |
Decision Date | 30 September 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 3-681A160,3-681A160 |
Parties | George J. HARDESTY, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. Sheriff Dean BOLERJACK et al. * , Appellees (Defendants Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Fred R. Jones, Goodrich, Jones & Huff, Plymouth, for appellant.
William H. Albright, William H. Albright, P.C., Robert J. Konopa, May, Oberfell, Helling, Lorber, Campiti & Konopa, South Bend, for appellees.
On June 1, 1977, St. Joseph County Sheriff Dean Bolerjack suspended Corporal George J. Hardesty from the St. Joseph County Police Department pending investigation of alleged violations of established rules and regulations. 1 In addition, Bolerjack filed written charges with the St. Joseph County Sheriff's Merit Board (the Board) seeking the suspension, demotion, or discharge of Hardesty. At the conclusion of several hearings on these charges, the Board directed Bolerjack to discharge Hardesty from his position with the department. The St. Joseph County Superior Court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, and Hardesty now appeals. 2
Appellant initially contends that the Board failed to enter specific findings of fact which would provide a sufficient basis for judicial review. 3 The Board's decision actually reads as follows:
"IT IS NOW ORDERED AND ADJUDGED BY THIS BOARD, by majority decision, that Dean Bolerjack, Sheriff of the St. Joseph County, Indiana, Police Department is hereby authorised [sic] and directed to discharge the said George Hardesty from the St. Joseph County, Indiana, police department and to forfeit all of his pay and allowances, forthwith." Record at 210 (82-84).
In essence, the Board did little more than repeat the language of the charging document in the above findings. Appellant contends that such was error.
This issue was addressed in Yunker v. Porter County Sheriff's Merit Bd. (1978), Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 977, at 982, wherein this Court held that:
(Citations omitted.)
In Yunker the only findings made were citations to the pertinent rules and regulations. It has been held, however, that where the charging document contains extensive statements and facts regarding the alleged misconduct, that document can be read together with the entry of the Board to constitute findings which are specific enough for intelligent judicial review. Connell v. City of Logansport (1979), Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 1058; Martincich v. City of Hammond (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 240. Such is the situation in the case at bar.
That findings of fact by administrative agencies are necessary cannot be disputed. Without proper findings, a reviewing court is placed in a position in which it must weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. The purpose of specific findings of fact is therefore to crystallize the agency's analysis of the evidence in order to provide this Court with an opportunity for intelligent review. If an agency's findings are sufficiently specific to allow a person of ordinary intelligence to ascertain the basis of the agency's decision, the findings meet the required degree of specificity. The findings of the Board in the present case meet this test.
This result is not a departure from Perez v. United States Steel Corp. (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 29, which involved an appeal from an order of the Industrial Board. In Perez, Justice Hunter set forth the rationale for requiring specific findings as follows:
(Citations omitted.) 426 N.E.2d at 32.
There is a crucial distinction, however, between Merit Board cases and cases which arise from the Industrial Board or the Employment Securities Division. In Merit Board cases there must be written charges sufficiently specific to inform an officer of the facts which constitute his misconduct. If the Merit Board finds an officer guilty of a charge, it necessarily finds that the facts alleged in that charge exist. Conversely, if the Board finds the officer not guilty on a charge, it must find that one or more of the facts alleged in the charge were unsubstantiated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hardesty v. Bolerjack, 3-781A196
...in the initial cause appears in the record of St. Joseph Superior Court, Case No. H-6903. That case, i.e., Hardesty v. Sheriff Bolerjack et al., Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 490, was the subject of a separate appeal.2 In his brief appellant makes extensive argument that mutuality of estoppel was al......
-
Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. United Refuse Co., Inc.
...to the resolution of this issue were mere surplusage, which do not affect the validity of his decision. Cf. [Hardesty v. Bolerjack (1982), Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 490, 493] (findings required to be sufficiently detailed to allow for meaningful judicial...
-
Woods v. Thompson
...Board is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law and must be voided by the trial court. [Citations omitted.]In Hardesty v. Bolerjack (1982), Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 490, the Merit Board's decision including a finding that a deputy committed violations charged by the Sheriff and, in so doin......
-
Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. United Refuse Co., Inc., 49A02-9102-CV-58
...a person of ordinary intelligence to ascertain the basis of the agency's decision, the findings are sufficient. Hardesty v. Bolerjack (1982), Ind.App., 440 N.E.2d 490, 493, trans. denied. Despite the ALJ's somewhat disjointed findings, we are able to easily discern the nature and reasoning ......