Snider v. Mt. Vernon Hancock School Bldg. Corp., 567S3
| Decision Date | 08 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 567S3,567S3 |
| Citation | 250 Ind. 10,234 N.E.2d 632 |
| Parties | Carl L. SNIDER et al., Appellants, v. MT. VERNON HANCOCK SCHOOL BUILDING CORPORATION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James A. Emmert, Shelbyville, Bowen, Myers, Northam & Givan, Indianapolis, for appellants.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Lloyd C. Hutchinson, James B. Droege, Deputy Attys. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees--State Board of Tax Commissioners and the Constituent Members of Said Board.
Richard T. Lineback, Greenfield, Richard L. Brown, Butler, Brown, Hahn & DeWitt, Indianapolis, for all other appellees.
This is a class action brought by appellants as taxpayers of Mt. Vernon Community School Corporation of Hancock County against the Mt. Vernon Hancock School Building Corporation, members of the Board of Directors thereof, and the State Board of Tax Commissioners. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the issuance and sale of bonds by the corporation. The building corporation was a lessor under a rental agreement with the community school corporation; an injunction was also sought against the performance of the proposed school building lease. Finally a declaratory judgment was sought. The complaint alleged that the proceedings had by the two corporations in negotiating and approving the rental agreement were in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority and limitation and short of statutory right without observance of procedures required by law. In essence the taxpayers opposed the validity, location, wisdom, feasibility, and extent or character of financing, leasing and construction of a proposed high school building. The decision of the trial court on all issues was for the appellees (defendants) and against the appellants (plaintiffs). From this decision the appellants appeal.
From the above re sume of the issues presented by the parties to this appeal it may be readily noted that there were matters of grave public concern to the affected school patrons and taxpayers residing within the school corporation involved. Therefore it was of concern to this Court to schedule an oral argument to hear this appeal at the first available time. At the time allotted for hearing in this case there were many other pending appeals of great and equal importance to the parties with then existent bona fide issues in each such appeal.
However, at the time of oral argument and hearing before this Court, counsel for both the appellants and appellees admitted in open court that the issues presented by this appeal were moot for the following reason, to-wit:
(1) That the school building project had been completed by financing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. Hiles
...an appellate tribunal of post-judgment events which may affect the outcome of a pending appeal. Snider v. Mt. Vernon Hancock School Bldg. Corp. (1968), 250 Ind. 10, 234 N.E.2d 632, 634. Such an exercise, the Court explained in Snider, would constitute a wasteful expenditure of this Court's ......
- Malone v. State
- Miller v. State
- Jenkins v. State, 1283S434