finding that I.C. § 35-46-2-1 did not include an implied right of action
How later courts described this case
- finding that I.C. § 35-46-2-1 did not include an implied right of action
- “[The Publisher] actually relinquished the student journals by placing them in distribution stands.”
- "When a civil tort action is premised upon violation of a duty imposed by statute, the initial question to be determined by the court is whether the statute in question confers a private right of action.” In the case of a statute, this determination begins with an examination of legislative intent.
- declining to recognize private cause of action for violation of criminal statute
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAILEY, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree that in placing the student journals in' distribution stands and making them available to the public without limitation, Right Reason “abandoned” said journals. In so doing, Right Reason relinquished all property rights in the journals thereby giving up any and all claims to them. Having made this determination, the necessity to delve into other issues, especially those involving Constitutional law, is negated. As a matter of jurisprudence, we do not decide constitutional issues when a case can be decided on other grounds. Town of Beverly Shores v. Bagnall, 590 N.E.2d 1059, 1063 (Ind.1992). Thus, I respectfully concur in result.