Case Name: School City of Elkhart v. State ex rel. Concord Community Schools
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1967-06-20
Citations: 248 Ind. 511
Docket Number: No. 31,034
Parties: School City of Elkhart v. State ex rel. Concord Community Schools.
Judges: Arterburn, J., concurs.
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 511–524

Head Matter:
School City of Elkhart v. State ex rel. Concord Community Schools.
[No. 31,034.
Filed June 20, 1967.
Rehearing denied October 6, 1967.]
D. Russell Bontrager, Al J. Spain, of Elkhart, George Buckingham, of Goshen and Philip E. Byron, Jr., of Elkhart, for appellants.
Joseph A. Roper, and Arthur J. Perry, of South Bend, for appellee.

Opinion:
Mote, J.
On July 29, 1966, there was issued out of the Elkhart Circuit Court a temporary injunction of broad scope, which restrained and enjoined the defendants (Appellants) in an action brought by the plaintiffs (Appellees) under and in pursuance of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (Acts of 1927, Ch. 81, p. 208, Burns' Ind. Stat. 1946 Repl., § 3-1101, et seq.) seeking a declaration of rights, status and other legal relation between the parties and, an emergency having been alleged to- exist, temporary injunctive relief likewise was sought until such asserted declaratory relief could be obtained. The parties to this appeal have agreed that in our consideration of the equity relief granted in the trial court, it will be necessary for us to consider the merits of the action as it pertains to- declaratory relief, and such parties have expressed the wish to- this Court that it decide the two issues. Under all of the circumstances presented to us herein, it will be our intention so to do.
There are many pertinent facts set forth in the briefs which have required consideration, but we think that such detailed facts do not require more- than limited mention in this opinion.
Enactment of The School Corporation Reorganization Act of 1959, the same being contained in the Acts of 1959, Ch. 202, p. 451, et seq., as amended, is extremely significant in the consideration of this appeal. When one considers the declared public policy stated in the title of the Act, as well as the powers and duties of the county committees and the State Commission for the Reorganization of School Corporations created by said Act, one cannot escape the state of emergency which appeared to obtain, as well as the disappointment of the efficacy of previous legislation designed to meet modern needs for public education. Great sums of money are expended annually for public education, and the enactment of the 1959 Act was the first breakthrough in the accomplishment and provisions for modern education in modem school houses by modem faculties with broad curricula—in theory, at least, the best that could be obtained for the money. While the attainment and success of these objectives and the public policy expressed may be questioned, the purpose is clear.
Hence, when the County Committee of Elkhart County embarked upon its duties and to fulfill its responsibilities, it had in mind, as the statute directs, county-wide reorganization. The mere fact that the County Committee, with approval of the State Commission, was able to bring about the organization of Concord Community Schools in Elkhart County, the territorial limits of which were the same as its predecessor and included all of Concord Township except the Civil City of Elkhart, it had accomplished but one phase of the task before it. This accomplishment did not require submission to the voters of the community school district. The fact that the County Committee's proposal to create the Elkhart Community Schools, after securing the approval of the State Commission, was defeated by the electorate bears significance only to the extent that such efforts failed. Indeed other efforts failed when submitted to the electorate.
In 1966, by appropriate and unlawful resolutions, the Civil City of Elkhart annexed several adjacent and abutting territories, after which the County Committee proposed that Elk-hart Community Schools should be created and included in the territory to be served by such proposal the newly annexed territories, all of which lay in Concord Township, and if the proposal finally were approved, it would mean that the Elk-hart Community Schools would gain accretion and the Concord Community Schools would suffer diminution to the extent of the accretion. The procedures required were strictly followed and after approval by the State Commission of the County Committee's said proposal, the matter was submitted as required to the electorate of the territory involved in the proposal, which received an affirmative vote.
The necessary steps were taken to create the Elkhart Community Schools and the same would have come into existence at midnight on the close of June 30, 1966, except for the fact that the Appellees filed the action against the Appellants for the relief above mentioned. Subsequent to June 30, 1966, an amended complaint was filed, setting forth the development of facts from the date of the filing of the original action, namely: the coming into existence of the Elkhart Community Schools. To the amended complaint, Appellants filed their answer and a hearing was held, after due notice, on the question concerning whether a temporary injunction should be issued. The trial court held that such temporary injunction should issue and indeed it was issued. The finding and decision resulted in this appeal.
As we view the matter, announced public policy and the urgency expressed by the General Assembly of 1959 and the duties, as well as the responsibilities of those who became involved, such as the members of the County Committee and of the State Commission, the precise directions set forth and the provision for additional efforts after failure, we cannot escape the conclusion that the creation of Concord Community Schools, Elkhart County, Indiana, under the circumstances briefly set forth above, was but a small part of the over-all tasks to be performed in the establishment of a county-wide school system and indeed a school system which might include more than one county.
We commend those citizens of Concord Township for their exhibited pride in their own community, such being one of the attributes which has made our nation strong, yet we must hold and decide that certainly until and unless the objective of the General Assembly through its created agencies comes to final fruition, other and different territorial divisions, alterations and changes can be made to provide the young people of Indiana with the very maximum facilities for the minimum amount of money.
While we rather believe that the territorial description of Concord Community Schools, which includes all of Concord Township except the Civil City of Elkhart, could be found to be in the nature of a reservation of territory which might be annexed in the future, we do not decide this question. We do express the opinion that in light of the recent growth of so many communities, cities and towns, as well as suburbs outside the corporate limits of .cities and towns, and the apparent desire for more and more people to move to the country, none of us can be sure where our children will attend school in he future. This will depend upon legislative enactment. The judgment herein rendered by the trial court is hereby reversed, with instructions to dissolve the temporary injunction, and the court is hereby ordered to enter a finding and, judgment for the Appellants, defendants below, in accordance with the tenor hereof, both on the equity and the law questions presented.
Arterburn, J., concurs.
Jackson, J., concurs in result.
Hunter, C. J., dissents with opinion.