explaining that de minimis translates to mean that “the law does not redress trifles” or “[i]n contemporary American vernacular, it is the courts’ way of saying ‘So what?’ ”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that de minimis translates to mean that “the law does not redress trifles” or “[i]n contemporary American vernacular, it is the courts’ way of saying ‘So what?’ ”
- holding that where party cites no "cognizable harm" arising from procedural misstep,, "immaterial variances from prescribed procedures have no legal fallout"
- discussing the “practical doctrine” that “proclaims that the law does not redress trifles”
- rejecting literal construction of Indiana Constitutional provision in light of history of the provision and subsequent practice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Connected as it is to the vetoed pay bill, this appeal has been a painful experience. Judges and prosecutors and their families have now gone seven years without so much as a cost-of-living adjustment, even as social workers, teachers, university professors, prison guards, and state employees generally have received several such adjustments. This differential treatment has been ruinous to the state's judiciary. Passing through the cloud of this calamity to decide this appeal on the basis of our best judgment about the law, however, is the job we have chosen and been chosen to do. While I place more value on the available legislative history than Justice Bochm does, in the end, I have decided he is right about what is the correct decision in this case.