Opinion

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

  • 951 N.E.2d 244
  • 2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1156
  • 2011 WL 2496685
Court
Indiana Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 23, 2011
Status
Published
Author
Riley
On the bench
Barnes, Darden, Riley
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.0%

regardless of whether moot, court addressed question concerning closing of public school for stated budgetary reasons because, as question of great public interest, it was likely to recur

How later courts described this case

  • regardless of whether moot, court addressed question concerning closing of public school for stated budgetary reasons because, as question of great public interest, it was likely to recur

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

RILEY, Judge,

concurring in result with separate opinion.

Although I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s motion to dismiss, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis. Whereas the majority embarks on a lengthy constitutional evaluation, I would declare SOS’s appeal to be moot. Regardless of the outcome, it is clear that no effective relief can be rendered to the parties. See Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc. v. Durham, 748 N.E.2d 404, 410 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). Elm-hurst has closed its doors, its former students and teachers have transferred to other schools, and most of the equipment has been redeployed elsewhere. Moreover, FWCS asserts that due to its collective bargaining agreement, teachers could bid for a position at a re-opened Elmhurst, and as result, the facility, if forced to reopen, would probably be completely different.

In its opinion, the majority develops a constitutional analysis of the Education Clause and the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause based on a very limited fact-situation. The record clearly reflects that the majority bases its evaluation on the assertions listed in SOS’s complaint; no discovery has been conducted, the summary judgment stage has not even been reached. While I do not dismiss the potential public interest involved here, I would prefer to embark on a constitutional analysis after more facts are known and *252 the precedent created by the case would be more valuable. See Juskulski v. State, 206 Ind. 503 , 190 N.E. 423, 426 (1934) (A precedent must be considered in light of the circumstances of the cause to which it was addressed).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.