State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court, No. 1274S252
| Docket Nº | No. 1274S252 |
| Citation | 263 Ind. 353, 332 N.E.2d 99 |
| Case Date | August 06, 1975 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 99
v.
The NOBLE CIRCUIT COURT et al., Respondents.
[263 Ind. 354]
Page 100
Howard E. Petersen, LaGrange, Louis G. Ketcham, Albion, for relatrix.R. Stan Emerick, Kendallville, Virginia D. McCarty, Indianapolis, for respondents.
HUNTER, Justice.
On December 24, 1974, this Court issued an alternative writ of prohibition at the instance of relatrix Ruth Anna Young. The writ restrained the Noble Circuit Court, The Honorable John C. Hagen, regular judge of the Noble Circuit Court, and several judges pro tempore of that court from taking further action in the matter of a recount petition filed by Jack E. Reidenbach. Upon consideration of respondents' return and relatrix's brief, we dissolve the alternative writ.
Relatrix Young, by official canvass of votes cast on November 5, 1974, was declared the victorious candidate in the race for auditor of Noble County. The only other candidate, Jack E. Reidenbach (hereinafter called Reidenbach) sought a recount pursuant to IC 1971, 3--1--27--1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 29--5401 (Burns 1969 Repl.) which provides:
'--Any candidate for any public office voted upon at any election held within the state of Indiana shall have the [263 Ind. 355] right to have the votes cast for the office for which he was a candidate recounted in any voting precinct or precincts in any county or counties, as the case may be, under the conditions and in the manner and with the effect as in this article provided.'
The General Assembly, recognizing that the orderly transition of governmental power is facilitated by the early resolution of election disputes, has required that such petitions be filed within fifteen days after the polling date. IC 1971, 3--1--27--3, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 29--5403 (Burns 1969 Repl.). Reidenbach's petition was timely filed on November 19, 1974.
The contents of a recount petition are governed by IC 1971, 3--1--27--5, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 29--5405 (Burns 1969 Repl.), which provides:
'Each such petition shall state the office and the precinct or precincts within the county in respect of which thepetitioner desires a recount; that he was a candidate at such election for such office and that the office was voted upon in the precinct or precincts specified; the name and post-office address of petitioner's opposing candidate or candidates; that the petitioner in good faith believes that either through mistake or fraud the votes cast for such office at such election in such precinct or precincts were not correctly counted and returned; that the petitioner desires to contest said election in respect of said office, or that the petitioner desires to prepare for a contest in respect of such office which he has reason to believe will be instituted against him; and that he desires a recount of all of the votes cast for such office in such precinct or precincts. The term 'contest' as used in this section shall include all forms of contest herein or hereafter recognized as appropriate means for contesting title to a public office. The court in which such petition is filed or the judge thereof in vacation may
Page 101
allow such petition to be amended at any time upon such terms and conditions as the court or judge may order.'(Emphasis added.)
Reidenbach's petition was captioned 'In the Matter of the Petition of Jack E. Reidenbach for a Recount of Votes.' It contained all averments required by IC 1971, 3--1--27--5, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 29--5405 (Burns 1969 Repl.). On receipt of a copy of the petition, relatrix Young filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, premised upon this Court's [263 Ind. 356] unanimous decision in Marra v. Clapp (1970), 255 Ind. 97, 262 N.E.2d 630. In Marra, the Court held that language in the election contest statute, 1 similar to the italicized portion of the recount statute set out above, required dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the petition contained in the body thereof 'the names of all persons who were candidates,' as prescribed by the statute, but the caption of the petition failed to name each of the contestees as party defendants.
In response to the motion to dismiss, Reidenbach filed on November 22, a motion to amend his petition and submitted therewith a petition identical to the first petition, but captioned:
'JACK E. REIDENBACH, Petitioner
vs.
'RUTH ANNA YOUNG, Respondant' (sic).
On November 26, the motion to dismiss was granted and the motion to amend was denied. Thereafter, a number of events transpired which had the effect of reversing the determination made on November 26, and led to this original action.
In reviewing the Marra decision, we are constrained to consider the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garwood v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 31A01-1603-CT-679
...decide a case. Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utils., Inc. , 648 N.E.2d 641, 645 (Ind. 1995) ; State ex rel. Young v. Noble Cir. Ct. , 263 Ind. 353, 356, 332 N.E.2d 99, 101 (1975). A court of this state has only such jurisdiction—that is, only such power—as granted to it by statute or o......
-
Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 49T05-9007-TA-00038
...by the constitution or statute." In re Adoption of H.S., 483 N.E.2d at 780 (citing State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 332 N.E.2d 99). As a general rule, state courts have subject matter jurisdiction concurrently with federal courts over cases arising under fede......
-
Parker v. State, No. 3-777A172
...after the trial court has sustained a party's motion to dismiss, rather than before. State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 332 N.E.2d 99; Brendanwood Neighborhood Association v. Common Council of Lebanon (1975), 167 Ind.App. 253, 338 N.E.2d 695. Here, there is not......
-
Harp v. Indiana Dept. of Highways, No. 41A04-9012-CV-570
...547 N.E.2d 267, 269; Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind.App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780; State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 356, 332 N.E.2d 99, 101; State ex rel. Indianapolis v. Brennan (1952), 231 Ind. 492, 497, 109 N.E.2d 409, 411 (citing Rhode Island v. Massa......
-
Garwood v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 31A01-1603-CT-679
...decide a case. Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utils., Inc. , 648 N.E.2d 641, 645 (Ind. 1995) ; State ex rel. Young v. Noble Cir. Ct. , 263 Ind. 353, 356, 332 N.E.2d 99, 101 (1975). A court of this state has only such jurisdiction—that is, only such power—as granted to it by statute or o......
-
Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 49T05-9007-TA-00038
...by the constitution or statute." In re Adoption of H.S., 483 N.E.2d at 780 (citing State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 332 N.E.2d 99). As a general rule, state courts have subject matter jurisdiction concurrently with federal courts over cases arising under fede......
-
Parker v. State, No. 3-777A172
...after the trial court has sustained a party's motion to dismiss, rather than before. State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 332 N.E.2d 99; Brendanwood Neighborhood Association v. Common Council of Lebanon (1975), 167 Ind.App. 253, 338 N.E.2d 695. Here, there is not......
-
Harp v. Indiana Dept. of Highways, No. 41A04-9012-CV-570
...547 N.E.2d 267, 269; Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind.App., 483 N.E.2d 777, 780; State ex rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court (1975), 263 Ind. 353, 356, 332 N.E.2d 99, 101; State ex rel. Indianapolis v. Brennan (1952), 231 Ind. 492, 497, 109 N.E.2d 409, 411 (citing Rhode Island v. Massa......