South Bend Tribune v. SOUTH BEND COM. SCH. CORP., No. 71A03-0005-CV-163.

Docket NºNo. 71A03-0005-CV-163.
Citation2000 Ind. App. 3, 740 N.E.2d 937
Case DateDecember 21, 2000
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

740 N.E.2d 937
2000 Ind.
App. 3

The SOUTH BEND TRIBUNE, Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTH BEND COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, Appellee-Defendant

No. 71A03-0005-CV-163.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

December 21, 2000.


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.

OPINION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The South Bend Tribune (the "Tribune") appeals the trial court's dismissal of its

740 N.E.2d 938
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.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

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. "[W]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, this court need not, and indeed may not, interpret the statute. Instead we must hold the statute to its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Howard Reg'l Health System D/B/A Howard Cmty. Hosp. v. Gordon, No. 34S02–1009–CV–476.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 10, 2011
    ...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 acting within his ......
  • Coutee v. LAFAYETTE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING, No. 79A04-0210-CV-513.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 5, 2003
    ...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)). However, when t......
  • MDM INVESTMENTS v. City of Carmel, No. 29A02-9912-CV-834.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 21, 2000
    ...to be heard with respect to the damages due him for the land appropriated even though he has chosen not to contest the right of 740 N.E.2d 937 the condemnor to appropriate the land.") (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Having considered the statute as a whole, we conclude that the legislature did ......
  • Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Friendly Village of Indian Oaks, No. 10A04-0110-CV-472.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 23, 2002
    ...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. Indiana Code Section 16-41-27-29 i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Howard Reg'l Health System D/B/A Howard Cmty. Hosp. v. Gordon, No. 34S02–1009–CV–476.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 10, 2011
    ...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 acting within his ......
  • Coutee v. LAFAYETTE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING, No. 79A04-0210-CV-513.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 5, 2003
    ...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)). However, when t......
  • MDM INVESTMENTS v. City of Carmel, No. 29A02-9912-CV-834.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 21, 2000
    ...to be heard with respect to the damages due him for the land appropriated even though he has chosen not to contest the right of 740 N.E.2d 937 the condemnor to appropriate the land.") (Sullivan, J., dissenting). Having considered the statute as a whole, we conclude that the legislature did ......
  • Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Friendly Village of Indian Oaks, No. 10A04-0110-CV-472.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 23, 2002
    ...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. Indiana Code Section 16-41-27-29 i......
  • 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