From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

STATE v. VIGO SUPERIOR COURT

Supreme Court of Indiana
May 17, 2011
946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011)

Summary

In McIntosh v. Superior Court, 56 Wn. 214, it is said: "It is next contended that while the company is authorized to construct and build railroads, it is also authorized to engage in private business.

Summary of this case from Land Co. v. Traction Co.

Opinion

No. 84S00-1104-0R-203.

May 17, 2011.

Trial Court Cause No. 84D06-1006-FC-02191.


PERMANENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION

Relator, by counsel, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition and accompanying application papers under the rules governing original actions. Relator alleges that the trial court failed to rule on a motion within the time required by Trial Rule 53.1 and that the trial court clerk failed in her duty to withdraw the case from the trial court for appointment of a special judge after Relator filed his praecipe. This Court issued an order allowing an opportunity for the filing of responsive briefs, but none were filed.

Each Justice has had an opportunity to review the petition and other papers filed in this matter. All five Justices have voted to grant the permanent writ.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the permanent writ in the following manner. The Honorable Michael J. Lewis is directed to cease exercising jurisdiction over this case except as to any administrative tasks necessary to effectuate this writ. Patricia R. Mansard, clerk of the trial court, is directed to give written notice to Judge Lewis and this Court that submission of the trial court case is being withdrawn in accordance with Trial Rule 53.1(E)(2). Motions to reconsider or petitions for rehearing are not allowed. Ind. Original Action Rule 5(C).

Judge Lewis is reminded of his obligation to file a written report pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1(F) after the clerk complies with Trial Rule 53.1(E)(2) and this Court issues an order appointing a special judge.

The Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this writ to the Hon. Michael J. Lewis, Judge, Vigo Superior Court No. 6; Patricia R. Mansard, Clerk, Vigo Circuit Court; Douglas M. Grimes, 6941 Ironwood Ave., Gary, Indiana 46403; Terry Modesitt, Vigo County Prosecuting Attorney; Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana; and Andrew Kobe, Deputy Attorney General. The Clerk of this Court is further directed to post this order to the Court's website, and Thomson Reuters is directed to publish this order in the bound volumes of this Court's decisions.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, RUCKER, and DAVID, JJ., vote to grant the writ.


Summaries of

STATE v. VIGO SUPERIOR COURT

Supreme Court of Indiana
May 17, 2011
946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011)

In McIntosh v. Superior Court, 56 Wn. 214, it is said: "It is next contended that while the company is authorized to construct and build railroads, it is also authorized to engage in private business.

Summary of this case from Land Co. v. Traction Co.
Case details for

STATE v. VIGO SUPERIOR COURT

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Indiana ex rel. Brandon McINTOSH, Relator, v. The VIGO SUPERIOR…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: May 17, 2011

Citations

946 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 2011)

Citing Cases

Power Co. v. Power Co.

We think the law is clearly stated thus in 15 Cyc., 579. The fact that the charter powers of the corporation,…

Land Co. v. Traction Co.

The traction company has the power of eminent domain, not only by virtue of its charter, but by Revisal,…