Court Opinion

ID: 9521716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:10:35.828617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:31.557782
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The statute in question, Ind.Code § 20-4-8-18, indicates that where the board fills a vacancy due to a resignation, it shall select a person from the same board member district as the person who resigned. In this ease, the person who resigned was from Board District No. 1. The statute goes on to give the judge of the circuit court the power to make “such appointment”, when the board cannot agree on the new appointment. Here the board was unable to agree and the duty fell upon the respondent court to make the appointment. To date he has not appointed a board member from Board District No. 1. The act of appointment enjoined upon the respondent court by this statute is a non-judicial ministerial one. It is a duty enjoined by law. On authority of the case of State ex rel. Buttz v. Marion Circuit Court, (1947) 225 Ind. 7, 72 N.E.2d 225, I would vote to issue the writ commanding respondent to make the appointment as required by the statute.