State ex rel. Pickard v. Superior Court of Marion County, Civil Div., Room No. 3
| Decision Date | 15 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 982S378,982S378 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana ex rel. Ralph C. PICKARD, Relator, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, CIVIL DIVISION, ROOM NO. 3 and the Honorable Betty Barteau, as Judge of the Marion County Superior Court, Respondents. STATE of Indiana on the relation of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Relator, v. The MARION COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT and the Honorable Betty Barteau as Judge thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ellis McKay, Dennis M. Kelly, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Cleveland, Ohio, Joseph B. Carney, Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Schaefer, Frank A. Baldwin, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for relator.
The Superior Court of Marion County, Indiana, Civil Div., Room 3 and Betty Barteau, pro se.
This is an original action involving two consolidated cases following our denial of writs of prohibition and mandate on September 23, 1982. This case originated as an action brought before the Environmental Management Board (Board) concerning the alleged violation by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Inc. (Westinghouse) of certain state statutes and regulations with respect to the discharge and disposal of wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at certain disposal sites in the Bloomington, Indiana vicinity. Administrative hearings began in September, 1976, and after the introduction of certain expert testimony into evidence, the hearings were suspended in 1977. No final determinations or findings of fact were ever made by the original hearing officer.
On March 11, 1982, the Board issued a notice to Westinghouse and the other parties involved that the 1976-77 administrative hearings would be "reconvened." A new hearing officer was appointed because the original hearing officer was no longer employed by the state. Westinghouse moved to dismiss the new notice asserting that the Stream Pollution Control Board, although an inferior board to the Environmental Management Board, had exclusive jurisdiction in the case and that due process prevented a new hearing officer from assuming the case. The new hearing officer denied Westinghouse's motion and the Board's technical secretary stated that this denial was not reviewable by the full Board at that time.
Westinghouse then filed a verified petition for writ of prohibition and mandate against the Board in the Marion County Superior Court. That court granted the writ to a certain extent. The court ordered that the new hearing officer could rely only upon the testimony and evidence heard by him, personally, and could not rely upon the testimony and evidence heard by the prior hearing officer. The court held that if the Board wished to rely upon the testimony and evidence as it was presented in the record of the prior proceedings, they would have to use the original hearing officer who had personally heard the evidence. However, the court refused to grant any relief in respect to the Board's lack of authority to proceed against Westinghouse under the statutes asserted and left the matter of statutory jurisdiction for judicial resolution at the conclusion of the Board's proceedings.
Both the state and Westinghouse have appealed the trial court's decision in this original action. The state brought a writ of prohibition against the court's order limiting the evidence that could be considered by the new hearing officer to testimony and evidence that was heard by him, personally. Westinghouse brought a writ of prohibition and mandamus against the court's refusal to rule on the jurisdictional matter. This Court has denied both writs.
It is well settled that original actions are viewed with extreme disfavor by this Court. State ex rel. Neese v. Montgomery Circuit Court, (1980) Ind., 399 N.E.2d 375; State ex rel. White v. Marion Sup.Ct., (1979) Ind., 391 N.E.2d 596; State ex rel. Sendak v. Marion Sup.Ct., (1978) 268 Ind. 3, 373 N.E.2d 145. Writs of prohibition and mandate will be issued only where the trial court has an absolute duty to act or refrain from acting. State ex rel. Wm. H. Block Co. v. Sup.Ct. of Marion County, (1943) 221 Ind. 228, 47 N.E.2d 139. The extraordinary remedy of a writ is not appropriate unless a clear and obvious emergency exists and the failure of this Court to act would result in substantial injustice. State ex rel. Indiana State Board of Finance v. Marion County Sup.Ct., (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 340. Where the matter lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New Trend Beauty School, Inc. v. Indiana State Bd. of Beauty Culturist Examiners
...use of writs of prohibition against agencies which have denied a party minimum procedural due process. State ex rel. Pickard v. Superior Court of Marion County (1983) Ind., 447 N.E.2d 584. If it were otherwise, irreparable harm suffered during and as a result of administrative error or misc......
-
Mother Goose Nursery Schools, Inc. v. Sendak
...agencies in appropriate cases, such as where constitutional due process rights are being denied," State ex rel. Pickard v. Superior Court, 447 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.1983). And this Court has recently noted that Indiana also provides extensive declaratory relief in its state courts to individuals ......
-
State ex rel. City of New Haven v. Allen Superior Court, 02S00-9801-OR-21
...mandate will be issued only where the trial court has an absolute duty to act or refrain from acting. State ex rel. Pickard v. Superior Ct. of Marion County, 447 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.1983). "Like Any Other Civil Case"or Unauthorized Deferral The City initially cites Pridemore v. State, 577 N.E.2......
-
Kanizer v. State ex rel. Aukerman
...mandamus in appropriate cases, such as where constitutional due process rights are being denied. State ex rel. Pickard v. Superior Court of Marion County (1983), Ind., 447 N.E.2d 584, 586; Ind. Original Action Rule 1(D); IND.CODE Sec. 34-1-58-1 et seq. A mandate action initiated under IND.C......