Court Opinion

ID: 9706244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:36:57.981773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:20.722626
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
It appears to me that what we have done today is fashion relief pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 15(N) to affirm the power of the Ft. Wayne Common Council to enact the ordinance in question. I do not disagree with that result since I believe that IC 18-1-11-3 was intended by the legislature to provide minimum protection for firemen and was not intended to occupy the field. Cf. State ex rel. Geake v. Fox (1902), 158 Ind. 126, 63 N.E. 19 affirming the legitimate local interest in regulating municipal fire departments. Accordingly, I do not find, either, that the statute creates a separation of powers question between the legislative and executive branches of local government.
However, as to the approach taken by the majority, I must disagree. The form of the trial court’s order was one of “total” summary judgment. That was improper. The only facts properly before the court were the due enactment of the ordinance and that the firemen who were entitled to notice and hearing received none. The amount of damages they sustained, whether the chief was properly demoted, and questions concerning transfers of division and shift all contain material issues of fact which could not properly be disposed of on the basis of the materials before the court.
I therefore would remand for trial on the question of damages and concur in result as to the other dispositions.