Title: STATE EX REL. NEAL v. Hamilton C. Ct.
Citation: 224 N.E.2d 55, 248 Ind. 130
Docket Number: 31,001
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: March 13, 1967

248 Ind. 130 (1967)
224 N.E.2d 55
STATE EX REL. NEAL ET AL.
v.
HAMILTON CIRCUIT COURT, ROBERT McNEVIN, SPECIAL JUDGE.
No. 31,001.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed March 13, 1967.
*131 Symmes, Fleming, Ober &amp; Symmes, of Indianapolis, and Christian, Waltz, White &amp; Klotz, of Noblesville, both for relators.
Robert McNevin, pro se.
JACKSON, J.
This matter comes to this court by way of a verified Petition for Writ of Mandate against the respondents. The petition in pertinent part reads as follows:
The petition for the Writ was filed July 11, 1966, and on that date the court issued an alternative writ of mandate "... commanding the Hamilton Circuit Court and Robert W. McNevin, as Special Judge thereof, to grant the Defendants' Motion for Selection of Special Judge in said cause entitled `State of Indiana, in the Relation of the Hamilton County Circuit Court v. Jim Neal, The Noblesville Daily Ledger, a corporation,' the same being cause No. C5-099 in said Hamilton Circuit Court, or, on failure to do so, that the Respondents file their return showing any reason in law or in fact why this writ should not be made permanent on or before 8 Aug., 1966."
Respondents filed their return to the alternative writ on August 2, 1966. In such return the judge alleged that the written opinion filed in said cause in the trial court was a final judgment from which the relators could have appealed. He further contends that the written opinion served to disqualify *134 him so that he could not and does not have the authority or jurisdiction to name a panel from which a special judge can be selected. The written opinion further holds that the statute under and by which the special judge assumed jurisdiction, Acts, 1931, ch. 26, § 1, p. 62, § 3-911, Burns' 1946 Replacement, is unconstitutional because it is a legislative interference with the judicial branch of government and is in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. Since respondent in his opinion decided the statute is invalid, the respondent held that he had no jurisdiction or authority to make a determination on the pending motion filed in the case. The matter was then withdrawn from further consideration and judgment was withheld.
In paragraph six of his return to the alternative writ the respondent alleged the written opinion constituted a final judgment from which the relators could have appealed. As a general rule, a final judgment which is appealable, is one which disposes of all issues as to all the parties, to the full extent of the power of the court to dispose of the same, and puts an end to the particular case as to all of such parties and all of such issues. Desho v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 308, 311, 145 N.E.2d 429; McNelis v. Wheeler (1947), 225 Ind. 148, 152, 73 N.E.2d 339; Enmeier v. Blaize (1932), 203 Ind. 303, 306, 179 N.E. 783.
Procedures for appeals in contempt cases are specifically provided for by statute. The procedures for appealing cases of direct contempt are contained in Acts 1879 (Spec. Sess.), ch. 35, § 7, p. 112, § 3-907, Burns' 1946 Replacement. The procedures for appeals from cases of indirect contempt are set out in Acts 1879, (Spec. Sess.), ch. 35, § 9, p. 112, § 3-909, Burns' 1946 Replacement. In both instances, an appeal lies only after punishment has been inflicted. Thus, there is no appealable final judgment in contempt cases until the court has proceeded to attach and punish the defendant for contempt by fine or imprisonment. Hence, *135 in the case at bar, there was no final judgment from which an appeal could have been perfected.
By paragraph seven the respondent raises the issues as to whether or not he has jurisdiction to name a panel for the selection of a special judge. Respondent asserts that the statute, § 3-911, Burns' 1946 Replacement, supra, by virtue of which he assumed jurisdiction herein, is unconstitutional because it violates the doctrine of separation of powers provided for by Art. 3, § 1, of the Constitution of Indiana which reads as follows:
The statute in question, Acts 1931, ch. 26, § 1, p. 62, § 3-911, Burns' 1946 Replacement provides in part:
Respondent argues that the courts have inherent power to punish for contempt. He asserts the statute is a legislative mandate interfering with that inherent power, that such a legislative mandate is an erosion of the doctrine of the separation of powers. Respondent asserts that by mandating the regular judge to disqualify himself the statute becomes invalid. In his written opinion, the respondent *136 referred to the annotation at 64 A.L.R.2d 603 in support of his contention that the statute is invalid. The annotation points out two cases from California and two cases from Michigan which held that a legislature does not have unlimited power to enact statutes providing for the disqualification of judges in contempt proceedings. It is significant that each of these cases involved a direct contempt. In fact, the cases only limited the authority of the legislature in cases of direct contempt where the court had the power to invoke punishment summarily. The case of Briggs v. Superior Ct. (1931), 211 Cal. 619, 297 P. 3, held that the legislature has power to provide for the disqualification of a judge in proceedings for the punishment of a constructive contempt, since in such case no necessity for an immediate and summary action on the part of the trial court exists.
The case at bar does not involve a summary contempt proceedings as it was an indirect and not a direct contempt and required compliance with the statute and giving notice. The legislature did not exceed its authority, nor did the legislation the respondents think unconstitutional, violate Art. 3, § 1 of the Constitution of Indiana. The special judge does have, or perhaps did have, both jurisdiction and authority to determine the cause.
On February 15, 1966, relators herein filed their motion for selection of a special judge. More than 180 days had elapsed since the Motion to Discharge had been presented respondent for determination, and at the time of the filing of the motion for the selection of a Special Judge on the 15th day of February, 1966, the only jurisdiction possessed by the respondent herein was to name the panel from which a Special Judge should have been selected.
The alternative writ of mandate heretofore issued is now made absolute and permanent, and the respondent judge is ordered to comply with said writ upon the certification of this opinion to him.
*137 Arterburn, C.J., Hunter, Myers and Mote, JJ., concur.
NOTE.  Reported in 224 N.E.2d 55.