# Board of School Trustees v. Barnell Ex Rel. Duncan

> Indiana Court of Appeals · April 7, 1997 · 678 N.E.2d 799

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720271

## Case

- **Full name:** BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF THE MUNCIE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Dr. Jack M. Bowman and Muncie Community Schools, Appellants-Defendants, v. Anthony BARNELL, by Next Friend, Barbara DUNCAN, Appellee-Plaintiff
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 7, 1997
- **Citations:** 678 N.E.2d 799; 1997 Ind. App. LEXIS 302; 1997 WL 158350
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baker
- **Judges:** Sullivan, Friedlander, Baker
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720271

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying Article 1, Section 12 of our constitution

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720271. Public record. Not legal advice.