applying Article 1, Section 12 of our constitution
How later courts described this case
- applying Article 1, Section 12 of our constitution
- the issue of whether certain statutory procedures satisfied due process was a matter of great public importance which would be resolved despite mootness
- appeal by student against school for expulsion became moot when period for which student had been expelled had passed
- appeal by student against pchool for expulsion became moot when period for which student had been expelled had passed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAKER, Judge,
concurring in result.
Although I agree with the majority that the legislature cannot restrict a court’s review of the constitutionality of an administrative agency’s actions, I write separately to express my concern regarding the majority’s discussion of In re P.J., 575 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct.App.1991) (Baker, J., dissenting), and Matter of H.L.K, 666 N.E.2d 80 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trans. granted.
As the majority notes, both P.J. and H.L.K discussed the tension between the powers granted to the school board by the legislature and the powers of juvenile courts. Specifically, we were asked to determine whether a juvenile court had the authority to issue an order requiring a student to attend school when the school board had already issued an order expelling that student. Although the majority in P.J. determined that the powers given to the juvenile courts should prevail, we held in H.L.K. that the legislature’s changes to IND. CODE § 20-8.1-5.1-15 evidenced an intent to return' the balance of power to the schools. However, the decision in H.L.K, which I authored for the majority, did not address the limits or constitutionality of the legislature’s changes to the statute. As such, I believe that the decision is irrelevant to the instant case. Therefore, while I appreciate the majority’s scholarship, I cannot embrace this portion of the opinion. In all other respects, however, I concur.