Kinzel v. Rettinger

Decision Date08 February 1972
Docket NumberNo. 871A165,871A165
Citation277 N.E.2d 913,151 Ind.App. 119
PartiesMax KINZEL et al., Appellants, v. Don RETTINGER et al., Appellees.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Nelson G. Grills, Indianapolis, Howard Heckner, Ligonier, for appellants.

Frederick E. Rakestraw, Brown, Brown & Rakestraw, Rochester, for appellees.

SHARP, Judge.

This is an appeal from a jdugment of the Marshall Circuit Court whereby the Court denied the granting of an injunction sought by Plaintiffs-Appellants, which would have enjoined the Defendants-Appellees from closing an elementary school in the village of Tippecanoe.

Appellants filed their complaint on August 23, 1971, requesting a restraining order without notice and an injunction. The only allegation in said complaint given as a basis for the injunction was that:

'The decision of the Board of School Trustees of Triton School Corporation was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law in this that:

A. They acted without sufficient information and study.'

After several motions and petitions filed by Appellees, the last being treated by the trial court as an affirmative answer, the cause was submitted for hearing after which the trial court pursuant to rule TR 52, made the following findings:

'The Court, having heard the evidence presented on behalf of the parties, having heard arguments of counsel, and being duly advised, now enters its findings and jdugment in this cause as follows:

'The Court now finds that on January 5, 1971, the defendants acted to take the students from the school building located at Tippecanoe, Indiana, to the elementary school building in Bourbon, Indiana.

'The Court now finds that the decision as made by said defendants was a decision within the legal authority of said defendants and that it was a decision made reasonably upon information before the defendants and factors to be considered by the defendants.

'The Court further finds that there has been and will be no great or irreparable harm or injuries to the plaintiffs or to their children, and that no waste of tax money has been established by reason of the defendants' actions.

'The Court further finds that there is no arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the defendants or no fraud on the part of the defendants established by the evidence.

'Upon the facts thus found by the Court, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any relief on their complaint and that the temporary restraining order heretofore issued should be dissolved.

'It further appears to the Court by the admissions in open court of counsel for both the plaintiffs and defendants that this cause should be finally adjudicated at this time, and that no further hearing or trial is necessary on the plaintiffs' complaint or injunction.'

The only issue presented by the Motion to Correct Errors which has been preserved and argued on appeal is that the decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. Appellants, having initially sought the injunction against Appellees in the trial court, had the burden of proving the allegation that Appellees acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The trial court denied the relief sought, and Appellants are appealing from that negative verdict. A verdict against the party with the burden of proof presents no question to this court on the grounds of insufficiency of the evidence. Bastow v. Knotts, 126 Ind.App. 152, 131 N.E.2d 155 (1956), Graves v. City of Muncie, Ind., 264 N.E.2d 607 (1970), and Pokraka v. Lummus Co., 230 Ind. 523, 104 N.E.2d 669 (1951).

Even assuming that Appellants have properly raised and preserved the alleged errors committed below, the only issue presented here for review is whether the action of Appellees was arbitrary and capricious, in that there were no facts which would lead a reasonable and honest man to take the action taken by Appellees. Only actions of an administrative body which are found to be arbitrary and capricious will be set aside by a court. City of Evansville v. Nelson, 245 Ind. 430, 199 N.E.2d 703 (1964);...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Products, Division of Nat. Oats Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 3, 1977
    ...to the trial court and upon which no evidence was introduced cannot be raised for the first time on appeal." Kinzel v. Rettinger (1972), 151 Ind.App. 119, 277 N.E.2d 913; J. I. Case Company v. Sandefur (1963), 245 Ind. 213, 197 N.E.2d 519. The trial court properly made no findings of fact c......
  • Grisell v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 8, 1981
    ...is bound by them, if they are supported by the evidence. It may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Kinzel v. Rettinger (1972), 151 Ind.App. 119, 277 N.E.2d 913." City of Mishawaka v. Stewart, (1974) 261 Ind. 670, 677, 310 N.E.2d 65, 68-69. See also, City of Indianapolis v. I......
  • Indiana State Bd. of Registration and Ed. for Health Facility Administrators v. Cummings
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 9, 1979
    ...denial. Where only speculation furnishes the basis for a decision, such determination is arbitrary and capricious. Kinzel v. Rettinger (1972), 151 Ind.App. 119, 277 N.E.2d 913. Although not critical to this decision, we find that the Board, at rehearing, must have evidence before it to esta......
  • Kramer v. Rager
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 9, 1982
    ...to our analysis. A party seeking an injunction has the burden of showing facts which entitle him to an injunction. Kinzel v. Rettinger, (1972) 151 Ind.App. 119, 277 N.E.2d 913. Injunctive relief is appropriate in actions involving property rights; in particular, cases involving a continuing......
  • 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