*1 presents Motion for a New Trial no for lant’s of the trial consideration of Court court must affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Reported in 262 N. E. 2d 208.
Note. —
Wright et et al. al. v. Kinnard September 22, 1970. petition for 1169A220. Filed [No. No rehearing filed.] Spencer, Frank E. Bowen, Donald E. Indianapolis, appellants. Obremskey, & Pedersen Parr, Richey, Richey,
David S. Lebanon, appellees. Morton, counsel, originally filed Plaintiff-Appellants herein J. The Sharp, judicial seeking re Court this action in the Boone Circuit *2 reorganiza declaratory judgment school that the view a Eagle involving Indiana, County, tion for Boone Defendants county, The Townships was invalid. Union of that court sus the trial Appellees Dismiss and filed a Motion to appeal the decision However, tained such motion. Wright dismissing complaint was reversed
trial court (1969). For a Kinnard, App. 286, 245 2d 835 144 N. E. Ind. v. controversy, growing see companion from the same case 302; 844 Kinnard, App. N. E. 2d Wright (1969). Judge by Special
Upon this cause was tried a remand upon presented Plaintiff- Court the issue the Boone Circuit Declaratory Judgment Complaint Appellants’ Amended Defendant-Appellees’ On Answer in General Denial. judg- 29, 1969, the Boone Circuit entered its October Court denying Plaintiff-Appellants ment and in favor of relief to the appeal Defendant-Appellees. on this sole contention contrary is that such to law. complicated factual situ- presented herein as
Involved clearly major relevant facts must be issue. The ation is one prior to a discussion of that issue. understood Reorganization Committee for the The Boone years many attempting to Corporations has. for been School combining corporation by reorganized new form a Township into Township and Union School School Corporation. dis- Eagle-Union The record before us gained approval such a was closes Reorganization of School for the Commission from the State September July However, in Corporations in of 1964. disapproved itself reversed
the State Commission Eagle-Union Corpora- formation of specific grounds. tion on written On November sub- stantially disapproved the same which was the State again accepted by September was acceptance immediately State This tested Commission. and, lawsuit filed in Boone Circuit Court after a change by Judge venue Circuit Court, to the Clinton tried Everett Lucas of latter court. Lucas found jurisdiction approve same or Commission had no State disapproved, earlier it had as such action similar arbitrary capricious administrative action outside the an judg- scope granted authority Commission. The State appealed; Plaintiff-Ap- because of ment that case was pellants’ compelled herein, set forth the contentions we are j udgment in the Clinton Circuit Court case: “The above trial without causes were submitted for jury, upon the intervention of a raised heard issues evidence was Plaintiffs’ Review Verified Petition for Judicial filing transcript by as amended and the the Defendant Reorganization Corpora- Commission for the of School
tions, and the matter as to raised under Plaintiffs’ the issues Review, being Petition for No. Judicial the same Cause 19849, portion advisement, was taken under the of the and 19350, consolidated No. the Cause was continued under rulings heretofore made in such consolidated causes: being duly order, “And the Court the de- advised now finds cision, and determination the of the State Commission for Reorganization any Corporations contrary of School to statutory authority given to the State Commission under 28-6115(3) Section comprehensive plan the final that required by as provisions is of said aforementioned ninety (90) statute within days pre- after notification of non-approval; vious and that said State Commission- did findings not make alleged an informal of fact nor were the changes in August 1965., the ‘Revised’ Final Plan of probative value a to be basis in law to a sufficient of refute approval arbitrary contention that the new was an capricious discretion-, abuse by transcript reason of the of fact that proceedings by record shown County Committee that the State Com- jurisdiction mission was approve without such final comprehensive plan transcript since such shows that required procedures Committee failed to follow adoption comprehensive law in of such final providing merger Townships. for and Union adjudged that considered, “It therefore is ordered order, determination decision of Reorganization part purportedly approving the for Revised Reorganization Comprehensive Plan Reorganization County Committee for the School of Boone of School hereby aside; Corporations set “Judgment pay plaintiffs, the costs and that defendants of this action. Court, April (Em- “Entered as Amended 1966.”
phasis supplied). statutory power of the State Commission duties Reorganization Corporations for the are defined 6(3), p. to this cause in relevant Acts of ch. § amended, being 28- the same Burns’ Ind. Ann. Stat. § (e), which reads as follows: ninety (90) days shall, “(e) commission within The state reorganizational plan, public hold hear- receipt after ing ly school reorganizational plan county main- to which such any county appertains at residents county any adjacent corporation affected an opportunity an party shall afforded other interested refer- appear commission and be before the state heard reorganization plan. The state commission ence public hearing any required to hold a shall not be not meet the minimum which in its fixed the does standrads requirements the state commission or other prior act, the state commission to that time has unless county stating given commission order to the a written meeting geographical area, of such mini- specified for a Whereupon the not be mum standards would feasible. necessary county out the with- shall make amendments committee hearings by requirement public county of further committee. *4 hearing, commission shall within
“After sixty any school so such the state writing plan, days approve the entire or (60) in any parts applying thereof to satisfactory therein, corporation included found county notify writing county committee or com- concerned. mittees by reorganization (1) plan approved copy “One as so county commission, com- state shall be returned to the mittee, together pertinent material submitted all committee; by county the second state commission copy reorganization plan approved shall filed as so record; permanent the third with the state commission as a reorganization copy plan approved shall be as so county plan filed with the recorder of the from which such submitted, permanent to be filed as record county. reorganization plan part “If such thereof submitted by by any county the state commission committee is found notify unsatisfactory,
to be state shall commission so county sixty writing committee concerned within (60) days stating public hearing, after the date of the county nonapproval and, request reasons committee, committee in county the state commission shall said assist revising satisfactory. so as to make it be resubmitted Such revised shall to the state commis- county ninety (90) days sion committee within after nonapproval.” notification of Judge Appellants the decision of contend Lucas is res being adjudicata to the considered herein and which approved April 11, the State Commission on already adjudged in that it had been that the State Commis- authority jurisdiction sion was without consider that plan. Appellants say, then, plan approved April plan rejected is the same Lucas in the Clinton Circuit Court case OR that it is a revision of that legally is not plan. sufficient make it new adjudicata (1) The basic elements of are fourfold: former must have been rendered a court of com was,
petent jurisdiction;
(2) the matter now in issue
might
suit;
been,
.or
have
determined in the former
controversy
(3)
particular
adjudicated
the for
parties
present
mer action must have
been between
suit;
(4) judgment
former
must have
suit
been
rendered on
merits. See American National Bank and
Hines,
App. 217,
Trust
Co. 239 N. E. 2d
(1968) quoting Johnson et al. v.
Knudson-Mercer Com-
*5
great signif-
(1906). It is of
pany,
“The conditions judgment they at the time the was ren as were legal rights dered, and relations of and to determined; parties when new as fixed facts so before a facts or conditions intervene furnishing de suit, new basis for the claims and second longer parties respectively, issues are no fenses the pleaded same, and hence the former cannot be subsequent to the action.” bar that at the time Lucas’ decision reveals record Metropolitan had Lebanon School District rendered Corporation. There the Lebanon yet to form availability both town- or Union or very real way, adjacent in some joining Lebanon schools ships with By contiguous the time corporation. school other some was introduced plan herein under consideration present closed. This avenues were adopted, these alternative geographic alterna- change to available as circumstances adjudicata of res application the doctrine precludes tives judgment below. explanation. The a fuller conclusion deserves The above p. 451, amended and found 202, 5(8), 1959, ch. Acts § (1948 Eepl.) contain Ann. 28-6111 as Burns’ Ind. Stat.
n contents Eagle- comprehensive plans such as required of follows: That statute reads as at issue. Union “Any preliminary comprehensive plan reorgani- or final adopted county zation, by committee before after amendatory 15, 1963], date of this act shall be [March sufficient as to form if it contains within its own terms or following reference for each corporation: school (a) proposed community The name of the corpor- school ;
ation general (b) description A of the boundaries of the com- munity provided (4) subsection ; [Burns 28-6107] § *6 (c) trustees; The number the board of school they appointed; whether shall be elected or (d) trustees, The manner in which the board of school board, other than interim elected, ap- is to be ; pointed disposition (e) any The of assets and liabilities of exist- ing in instances where such school divided; corporation is and after the date of this amenda- act, tory statement hereof.” adopted if there is submitted or it required by (4) subsection [Burns’ 28-6107] requirements, note that the five (a) We re- subsection quires only the name of the new corporation, and subsection dealing previously (e), existing with assets of divided cor- present porations, dispute. is not relevant to the Thus, there effectively only requirements three signifi- are of substantive comprehensive plan. cance in this The plan negated differences similarities between the Judge April 11, 1967, plan Lucas’ decision and the must be requirements background contained these three they appear. April It is 11, plan which true that 1965, plan geo- and the November contain exact same graphical boundaries: and Union townships. 1965, plan November 2, merely Lucas found a plan revision of the which had been turned down September and was therefore inappropriately approved because revisions of must be days disapproval. within 90 submitted Burns’ Ind. Ann. adjudicata (e), Presumably supra. would 28-6115 Stat. § as, April 1967, plan a apply were the if the surrounding of, previous plan, facts either revision changed. were not 11, 1967, plan April school board
The has members 2, 1965, staggered terms, whereas the November elected wholly and inex- problem A of a new did not. serious taking pert simultaneously was school trustees office board of major require- in one the three difference avoided. This wholly important, base our decision but do not ments is we only difference, really Rather, is it. guidelines solving practical how the problem, of a shows deciding practically worthless in what statute are is geographic plan. In this case areas or a revised new yet clearly plan approved April identical, are legally PLAN and not a of an revision NEW rejected plan. older major fac propositions; decision on two
We base this 11, 1967, background against April tual which the completely different than earlier. presented was Corpora completion Lebanon Metropolitan previous Lebanon tion from Appellees a real alternative District closed and viable *7 staggering County change and This school Committee. addition, justify conclusion. terms will alone In board guidelines statutory on what new absence of clear is County important'that revised, we and what is consider hearings, preliminary plans, developed held Committee new new hear Commission on its cooperated with the State ample Appellants op ings. which afforded procedure full The completed. persuade participate portunity to being plan, with issues 11, 1967, plan newa April The could not have in existence and not that were and variables adjudicata not Lucas, res decision arisen applicable. copies printed Pre- complain
Appellants further liminary April 11, plan] Plans were not avail- [of days public prior hearing able to the ten full to the held County Committee. We have been shown no statute which requires Preliminary printed Plans be and available prior days hearing; ten hearing full is notice it given days prior. which must be at least ten one At least wit- ness, Swank, Paul testified that such available nine were days hearing. Appellants showing before have made no irreparable harm, or, indeed, substantial or more than nothing minor It oc- inconvenience. is obvious unfair cured, Appellants process nor were denied due of law.
Finding error, judgment no below is affirmed. Affirmed.
Hoffman, P.J., concurs.
Pfaff, J., opinion. dissents with White, J., participating.
Dissenting Opinion J. I find that I majority am unable to concur in the Pfaff, opinion. appeal
This is an from a in a class action filed taxpayers certain individually and on behalf of themselves and all taxpayers other Township, of Union School Boone County, Indiana, similarly situated, Township Trustee Township against of Union County the Boone Committee for Reorganization Corporations, and the members thereof, and the certain individuals who were made defend- ants who claimed to be elected members the Board of Eagle-Union Trustees of Community School Corporation. challenged procedures plaintiffs the actions Reorganization
Boone Committee for of School Reorganiza- Corporations and the State for the Corporations approving comprehensive tion of School reorganization calling corporations for the of the
493 Indiana, County, into Townships and Union of Boone Eagle-Union Com- known as munity Corporation. School action action. The appeal in this cause of
This is the second parties and originally individual between the same was par- Township the same township of Union and trustee same Reorganiza- defendant, County Committee for the ties Boone for Corporations and the State Commission tion of School Corporations. appeal Reorganization The first judgment the action from a dismissal of was taken prior appeal, this court reversed In action on lower court. judgment appellees-defend- to overrule with instructions Wright (1969), 144 v. Kinnard motion to dismiss. See ants’ 302; App. 286, E. 17 Dec. 245 N. 2d Ind. 82. Ind. foregoing judgment
Following certification of Appellate the first Court in the reversal of judgment of the action, plaintiffs filed an cause of this same appeal declaratory judgment against complaint amended same defendants. substantially essentially complaint was
The amended hearing original judg- complaint as the case, with additional defendants con- ment of dismissal claiming sisting Board persons to be new of Trustees Eagle-Union Corporation. allegations plain- denial to the filed a defendants plaintiffs nothing by prayed that take complaint and tiffs’ complaint, and for costs the action. way amended of their com- the issues formed the amended had on was Trial answer and the defendants’ thereto. Evi- plaintiffs plaint of judgment Court rendered thereon heard dence finding on October by the
defendants, the decision Honorable Everett and that Lucas, the Clinton Circuit in consolidated Court N. April l4, 1966, No. entered on causes No. Eagle-Union formation of judicata *9 Community Eagle-Union Corporation and that School the Community Corporation validly School was in existence.
Appellants praecipe assignment their filed of errors entering finding the herein that court erred in fact mixed of plan question made, and conclusion of law that the in was adopted, compliance form, held and consumated in full as to procedure substance and under the school reor- ganization act, by Judge and that the decision Lucas the of judicata Clinton Circuit Court was not the to formation Eagle-Union Community of Corporation the School as to the approved in April State Commission on 1967; 11, subject Judge that to Lucas’ decision was not the to numerous material and substantial provisions approved April Commission on 1967; of that the decision court was not sustained contrary and was illegal sufficient evidence to law as to the Eagle-Union Community of said Corpora- formation School tion, of the Eagle-Union and as to decision court that Community Corporation validly School was in existence was by sufficient contrary not sustained evidence was law; to court erred its conclusion of law that law defendants-appellees against with the the plaintiffs-appel- allegations plaintiffs- each of the material of the lants complaint; appellants’ amended and the court in its erred Eagle-Union Community of law that conclusion School validly Corporation was in existence. procedures bring merger record of the to about Eagle Townships and Union into school cor- part
poration, case, which is a record this shows July Reorganiza- 1964 the State Commission for the Corporations approved proposed first tion of School mer- Eagle ger Townships Eagle-Union Union into the Corporation. Thereafter, September School disapproved State Commission 1964 the formation Corporation Eagle-Union ground specific on the written give reorganization proposed would school corporations pupils those two school provide opportunity nor Townships equal educational Union equalization support thereof. On November tax ap- merger corporations for such was the same finding any supporting An proved reasons or fact. without Court, originally filed in the Boone Circuit action was Judge Court and tried later the Clinton Circuit venued Lucas found that Everett Lucas of that court. approval Reor-
subsequent State Commission Eagle-Union ganization Corporations of such Com- of School any statutory Corporation contrary munity authority given Acts ch. State Commission under *10 451; 1963, 377, 1(3), p. 202, 6(3), p. Burns’ Ind. ch. § § Anno., 28-6115(e), Supp. 1968 Cum. Stat. § very Legislature clearly procedure set has out The reorganization as to the of school which must be followed Indiana, placed corporations has definite limitations determining legality courts, procedure. The on that corporations act, adopted under this have of the formation of as set forth of this a strict construction law rule of original appeal of this case in the reversal cause Wright supra, they action, Kinnard, adopted a v. have uniformly applied construction which has rule of strict been statutory proceeding. any special In ex rel. State v. Jones 7, 12, (1962), Ind. 181 Circuit Court 243 2d Johnson N. E. through 857, Court, speaking Judge Achor, 860, Supreme our stated: although property citizens have no vested “And individual political right state in affected a continuation of subdivision of the form, present nevertheless, its the individuals so may, state, require such a class or behalf changing prescribed political procedure
that City Indianapolis followed. Woerner subdivisions be 36, 34, 1961), E. (Ind. N. 2d and cases cited 177 therein. corporation, of a “The establishment being consideration, special statutory under a as here procedural requirements prescribed proceeding, in the strictly authority act court must be followed. no The has ignore procedure adopt such different method of procedure. ex rel. M. West Ins. Co. v. S. Ct. of (1952), 94, 100, 924, 927; Marion Co. State 231 Ind. 106 N. 2dE. Gary Sup. (1947), 478, ex rel. v. Lake Ct. 493, 254, E. 2d N. 261 and cases cited therein.” statute, (e), supra, very definitely The 28-6115 asserts a § disapproval in the limitation case of a of a for school reorganization by the State Commission. This statute re- quires disapproval case of of a for school reorganization by the State revised must days ninety be submitted State Commission within after disapproval. Legislature placed Another limitation the has submission a second plan, time of the same case rejected where the has voters, been which is not bar, the situation in at the case the time in which plan can be submitted to the electorate is limited to six months. Acts ch. §7(3), at last amended Acts p. Anno., ch. §1(3), Burns’ Ind. Stat. §28- 6119(b), Supp. 1968 Cum. together
The two statutes taken show the intention of the Legislature prevent attempts successive to have the same again plan adopted any number of times after it has been rejected by the State once Commission. principal presented by are we *11 calling
appeal plan merger is whether the Eagle for the of Townships Eagle-Union Community Union into the and School plan Corporation the same was the one which was held by illegal by the Circuit Clinton Court statutory reason of authority jurisdiction lack of and for the Committee present Commission to the same as the by disapproved which one was the State Commission. appellees, below, defendants Counsel for contend that the judgment judicata of the Clinton Circuit Court is not res be- procedures questioned are other different there some cause however, case; the decision of in the Clinton Circuit Court jurisdiction the lack clear that court is and definite anything plan. a revised The approve to submit and but by Circuit Court de- interpretation of statute the Clinton the parties appealed not from. the was cision between same complaint, original complaint amended In both the regarding judgment the same was of dismissal of which the Court, principal the this contention reversed judgment plaintiffs-appellants rendered between was that the parties in consolidated same in the Clinton Circuit Court from, unappealed No. causes No. 19349 and which was against valid, binding, judgment final the de- was judicata as to fendants and therefore was herein legality formation of the Eagle-Union Corporation. School called questions the court below was which
One of the calling for the was to determine whether Eagle-Union Eagle merger Townships into and Union Corporation as that was illegal the Clinton Circuit which was held Court, probative value whether there was evidence of supports a were identical conclusion judgment of Clinton Circuit Court therefore judicata. not res was presented court the instant trial case showing plans the full context of re-
evidence merger Townships organization and and Union into Eagle-Union Community Corporation. The con- writing. Upon plans various is in examination tent of these plans, approved two November and which on Court, later ruled invalid the Clinton Circuit April subject plan adopted which is the clearly appears litigation, it both these wording joining together express provided their for the *12 498 Eagle County, Indiana, Townships and Union of Boone community provi- corporation,
into school with the same finally approved sions both as the State Com- provisions geographic mission as to boundaries and the same permanent governing as to the of trustees board Eagle-Union Community govern- Corporation. This ing board of the under school both plans provided districts, for school trustees from two two Eagle each Townships, from and Union a fifth member large by Eagle to be elected at the voters of and Union Townships. important question to be considered in determination appeal, jurisdiction power this case on is as to the
authority County Committee and the State Commission Reorganization Corporations, of School power County of the Boone Committee and the State approve Commission to at submit and issue in this merger Townships cause and Union into a corporation. school reorganization The first case decided under school law rel. was State ex Jones v. Johnson adopted after the same was Court, supra, Circuit Supreme wherein the Court held that may require individuals as a class or on the state behalf of procedure changing prescribed political for the followed, citing Woerner, City etc. v. In subdivisions be dianapolis (1961), 242 Ind. E. 177 N. 2d 34. This case the decision of this court in Good v. Western was followed County Corp. Pulaski Sch. (1966), App. 210 (transfer N. 2d Ind. E. 220 E. 2d 274 N. denied), ex quoted in State rel. which and cited the rule supra. Court, Jones Johnson Circuit clearly v. This is forth, in this case law reason of cases set well Wright supra. original opinion Kinnard, case. v. decision, Under Lucas’ in adopted the rule Court, supra, ex Jones Johnson rel. Circuit v. and in Good County Corp., supra, procedures Western Pulaski Sch. strictly followed, outlined in statute have to considering procedures provision by there is no reorganization gives statute Com *13 time, power mittee the to resubmit a second or the State Eeorganization Commission for Corporations the of School power approve the plan to a the same second time which has unsatisfactory by Commission, been found the State and in rejected plan voters, only case a has been the it can again submitted if within six done months of the election. Under the well-established with es- rules reference to the corporation, of a tablishment State ex rel. Ct., supra, Jones v. Johnson Circuit and Good v. Western County Pulaski Corp., supra, power Sch. is no the there in County plan Committee to submit a has which been dis- approved Commission, except provi- the State under the ninety days sions set forth the statute and within from disapproval, by Judge as decided Lucas. statute, supra, It (b), is to be noted that the 28-6119 § plan approved by County refers to a which has been the rejected by voters, Committee and State Commission but the which is not the situation which is in this involved case Considering Lucas’ decision. the intention of the Legislature limiting the time six to months within which duly may approved plan a voters, be resubmitted to the Legislature placed a has limitation which is similar to the ninety-day limitation within has Committee present to its revised consideration the State rejection after its disapproval by Commission the State Commission.
Appellees rely have cited and Phillips on the case of v. (1969), App. 628, Stern N. E. 2d In 267. court approved case this that resubmission of the same rejection by the voters after to the voters the first In time. case, rejection plan, instant of the as heretofore noted Kinnard, Wright prior opinion herein, this court in the itself, a sub- supra, had been State sequent attempt part State Commission of the plan, approve rejected revised rather than Clinton Circuit Court decision lawfully approved is that the same not be could prior judicata parties. no such There was between these Phillips judicial parties determination between appli- case, supra, not be considered which therefore could ruling case in in that herein since of this court cable respect overlooking Commission to failure of strictly specific based terms follow the statute was in ground filed case had been action compliance is election, pointing strict until after the out that election. This respect the rule in filed actions before Eagle- case, legality questioning formation of Corporation, prior to the filed Union time election on its and within the formation *14 28-6118, by Anno., provided statute, 1968 Burns’ Ind. Stat. § Supp., part Cum. reads in as follows: validity the forma- “. . . No action to contest the under or tion the creation 7, (2) provisions of this section of this subsection validly or created or has declare that is instituted at ing it not been formed validly existing, enjoin operation shall or its day any the thirtieth follow- later than time (Acts 7(2), p. 451; 1961, 202, 1959, such election. ch. § §1(2), 1963, 380, p. 976.)” 302, 816; p. ch. §1(2), ch. by opinion plaintiffs- am action I timely appellants filed. was identical mixed In instant case have the same we question for reor- and fact as to whether the law Eagle- ganization Townships into Union Community Corporation identical to the Union by disapproved in the the State Commission that was parties question This same between the same first instance. fact, law and as to whether after on the mixed
501 by disapproved is again revision, can be resubmitted without de- adversely judgment by termined of the Clinton Circuit Court, judgment decided in the affirmative case, Boone Circuit Court in the instant which first case is appellants judicata ques- asserted on this mixed tion law and fact. many
As decisions, judicata stated in the doctrine of res existing merits, is that an final rendered collusion, by juris- without competent fraud a court of diction, is conclusive of causes of action and facts and thereby litigated, parties issues privies, to the their in all any judicial other actions the same or other tribunal of jurisdiction. concurrent 46 2d, Judgments, Am. Jur. § at 558-559. identity in this cause as
The evidence
and contents
plans
plans submitted,
shows that
of the various
various
litigation bearing exclusively upon
the formation of
Eagle-Union
Corporation,
geographical
as to
repre
identical
area and as
were
to the Board of
sentation made
Trustees. There
no
were
presented
any
plan.
different facts
evidence
as to
revised
documentary,
evidence was
and the rule in such cases
judge
probative
can
its
is that
court
force and effect as
State,
rel.,
Board,
as the
court could.
ex
well
trial
etc.
(1905),
N. E. 1091. As in the
at
case
bar,
concerning
plans
the evidence
documentary
where
they
record,
are
will be considered
than the
presumption
this court rather
usual
in favor of
respect
the conclusion
thereto
the trial court. Howell
(1956),
Ind.
Blackburn
*15
905;
N.
139
E. 2d
v.
Simpson (1935),
680, 684,
207
Lumm v.
Ind.
disputed Ind. Burke E. 2d 105. See also Lewis 180 N. 2d N. E. Lewis 297, 300, 2d 332. In the (1967), 248 Ind. N. E. reversing Indiana, Supreme the trial court Court evidence, setting respect a which was in to the effect of letter affirming Court, opinion prior Appellate aside the concerning documents, the of law did mention above rule hesitate set forth and document but did not construe the legal contrary effect and its to the decision of the trial court. Court, judg- judgment Circuit mixed of the Clinton The following fact, that the dis- and determined ment of law by Commission, approval the it was of such State approved proposed to be after improper for the same rejection ninety days disapproval its from appellees appeal The herein did not from the Commission. judgment appellants, Court and of the Clinton Circuit un- judicata, of were to the con- der the doctrine entitled judgment of their as to this clusiveness of law and determined previously the Clinton fact Circuit Court. County attempted that Committee to make It true changes disapproved in the which was later Court, the Clinton Circuit but record decision of here changes approve did not State Commission shows finally required plan, amendments to be made to the when recorded, prior plan adopted identical with involved including adjudication Court, Clinton Circuit geographical provision boundaries and permanent Board of Trustees. assignment questions also of errors the decision and procedures the trial court followed County Committee the State Commission in re- valid, legal. proper gard were thereto questioned by Among procedures plaintiffs-appellants’ complaint in this cause relate to the failure of amended preliminary to make the Committee written *16 reorganization compliance provisions available in with the 202, 5(5), p. 451, Acts ch. as last amended Acts § p. 982, Anno., ch. §1(5), Burns’ Ind. Stat. §28- Supp. part 1968 Cum. provides This statute follows: any county prepared “When prelim- committee has its inary tions, plans reorganization written for corpora- places it fix (1) shall dates and for or more one
hearings give thereon notice to all thereof the residents corporations of the school par- affected and all interested county ties. The committee shall have discretion as to hearing. (1) whether to hold more than one Such notice given county shall be the chairman of the committee publication at (1) newspaper general least once one published corporation circulation tions, the school corpora- newspaper published and if no is in the school corporation corporations, newspaper having then in a general a porations, circulation within the school or cor- days at (10) least ten thirty but more than (30) days prior to hearing.” the date set for such statute does not contain the While words “that such they plans adopted written after are shall be made available might public”, construed, it so be the statute writing requires plans provides to be in public such period days. notice ten thereafter undisputed testimony The evidence from the Superintendent plans Paul Swank that the written were not public days ten-day until available to nine before the published hearing period notice of plans, on such testified it period other witnesses that was a shorter of time days than nine when written were available necessary I public. do it not deem ques- discuss this the result tion reason of I which would reach herein. given,
For the reasons
of the lower court
should
reversed.
Reported in
Note. —