South Bend Tribune v. SOUTH BEND COM. SCH. CORP.
Decision Date | 21 December 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 71A03-0005-CV-163.,71A03-0005-CV-163. |
Citation | 2000 Ind. App. 3,740 N.E.2d 937 |
Parties | The SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellee-Defendant. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John P. Twohy, Eichhorn & Eichhorn, Hammond, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Paul J. Peralta, D. Lucetta Pope, Baker & Daniels, South Bend, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.
David J. Emmert, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Amicus Curiae.
The South Bend Tribune (the "Tribune") appeals the trial court's dismissal of its complaint alleging that the South Bend Community School Corporation (the "SBCSC") violated the Access to Public Records Act (the "Act"). The Tribune presents one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the Act required the SBCSC to disclose information about candidates for the position of Superintendent of Schools.
We affirm.
When the SBCSC began searching for a new Superintendent of Schools in early 2000, the Tribune requested from the SBCSC information about the candidates. Specifically, the Tribune sought the candidates' names, business addresses and telephone numbers, education and training backgrounds, and previous work experience. The SBCSC informed the Tribune that it would not provide any of the requested information.
The Tribune filed a complaint against the SBCSC alleging that it had violated Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-1 et seq. and seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting the SBCSC from further violating the Act. Following a hearing, the trial court entered thorough findings and concluded that the Tribune was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because it could not show any likelihood of success at trial and, further, that the SBCSC was entitled to a final judgment of dismissal on the merits. Accordingly, the court dismissed its complaint. The Tribune now appeals.
This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law reserved for the courts. Wayne Metal Prods. Co. v. Indiana Dep't of Envtl. Mgmt., 721 N.E.2d 316, 317 (Ind. Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. Appellate courts review questions of law under a de novo standard and owe no deference to a trial court's legal conclusions. Id. Miller v. Walker, 642 N.E.2d 1000, 1001-02 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted), aff'd, 655 N.E.2d 47 (Ind.1995).
(Emphases added). The Tribune contends that the plain meaning of that provision requires the SBCSC to disclose all of the designated information with regard to applicants for public employment. In the alternative, the Tribune argues that the statute is ambiguous and subject to an interpretation consistent with such disclosure. In support of that argument, the Tribune emphasizes that the policy of the Public Records Act requires liberal construction of the Act in favor of disclosure. See IND.CODE § 5-14-3-1. We disagree with the Tribune's reading of the provision, and we decline its invitation to find ambiguity where none exists. See Wayne Metal, 721 N.E.2d at 319
.
The plain meaning of Indiana Code Section 5-14-3-4(b)(8)(A) requires a public agency to disclose designated information only with regard to present or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howard Reg'l Health System D/B/A Howard Cmty. Hosp. v. Gordon
...interpretation under a de novo standard and owe no deference to a trial court's legal conclusions. South Bend Tribune v. South Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 740 N.E.2d 937 (Ind.2000). Indiana courts understand the Malpractice Act to cover “curative or salutary conduct of a health care provider act......
- MDM INVESTMENTS v. City of Carmel
-
Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Friendly Village of Indian Oaks
...Id. When a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, this court may not interpret the statute. South Bend Tribune v. South Bend Comm. School Corp., 740 N.E.2d 937, 938 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (citations omitted). Instead we must hold the statute to its clear and plain meaning. Id. Indiana Cod......
-
Coutee v. LAFAYETTE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING
...and unambiguous on its face, this court need not, and indeed may not, interpret the statute.'" South Bend Tribune v. South Bend Cmty. Sch. Corp., 740 N.E.2d 937, 938 (Ind.Ct. App.2000) (quoting Miller v. Walker, 642 N.E.2d 1000, 1001-02 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), aff'd by 655 N.E.2d 47 (Ind.1995)).......