« Ind. Courts - More on proposal to change judge selection in St. Joe county | Main | Ind. Courts - Yet more on: State's high court to hear Clark battle over fees »

Thursday, March 01, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 4 NFP)

For publication opinions today (1):

In Owen County by and through its Owen County Board of Commissioners v. Indiana Department of Workforce Development and Casey C. White, a 17-page opinion, Judge Robb writes:

Casey White was employed by the Owen County Highway Department (“Owen County”) until he was fired in December 2005 for allegedly failing a random drug test. White applied for unemployment benefits, which were denied on initial determination. White appealed that decision, and an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) reversed the initial determination, finding that the evidence failed to establish just cause for White’s discharge. The Unemployment Insurance Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (“Review Board”) adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Owen County then appealed. Concluding that the findings of fact support the Review Board’s determination that White was entitled to unemployment benefits, we affirm. * * *

In addition, because of certain perceived procedural irregularities in Owen County’s initiation of the appeal, the Review Board, pursuant to Indiana Code section 22-4-17-13, has filed the following Certified Question: Whether the procedures described in Ind. Appellate Rule 9(A)(3) and 9(I) (and Form 9-2) are the exclusive means to initiate an appeal from the Review Board, or whether the provisions in Ind. Code §§ 22-4-17-11 and 22-4-17-12 govern the initiation and perfection of an appeal. * * *

Indiana Code section 22-4-17-13 provides that the Review Board, “on its own motion, may certify questions of law to the supreme court or the court of appeals for a decision and determination.” Because the statutory procedure for appealing a Review Board decision differs from the procedure outlined by the Appellate Rules for initiating an appeal in general, the Review Board has certified to this court a question of law regarding the proper procedure for initiating an appeal from a decision of the Review Board. * * *

Both the Appellate Rule itself and our caselaw indicate that the Rule takes precedence over a conflicting statute. The Indiana Supreme Court has the inherent power to establish rules governing the course of litigation in the trial courts. Jackson v. City of Jeffersonville, 771 N.E.2d 703, 705-06 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. Accordingly, our courts have repeatedly held that when there is a conflict between a procedural statute and a procedural rule adopted by our supreme court, the supreme court rule takes precedence and the conflicting statute is nullified. To be in conflict, it is not necessary that the rule and the statute be directly opposed; rather, they need only be incompatible to the extent that both could not apply in any given situation. In re J.L.V., Jr., 667 N.E.2d 186, 189 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). A procedural rule enacted by statute cannot operate as an exception to a procedural rule having general application. Jackson, 771 N.E.2d at 706. * * *

Conclusion The procedure outlined in the Appellate Rules should be followed in appeals from the Review Board, notwithstanding a contrary statute. Based on this record, the Review Board’s finding that White was entitled to unemployment benefits was a reasonable one. The decision of the Review Board is affirmed.

NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (4) [Link to Cases]:

Albert W. Horner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tiron D. Corthen v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Jessica Bowling v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Tristan Bowling v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 1, 2007 01:22 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions