Court Opinion

ID: 9745089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:34:03.308822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:55.909710
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Arterburn, J.
I concur in the resulting reversal and denial of injunctive relief asked by the appellee in- this case. In my opinion the remedy is misconceived. I do not think an injunction in equity can- be asked against law enforcement officials in order to determine a violation of a criminal statute. If equity has such jurisdiction, then on the same theory equity'may enjoin the legislature from passing a similar bill which, is threatened or proposed, on the ground that the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional.
*327, I have set these reasons out more particularly in. a dissenting .opinion in Tinder v. Music Operating Inc. (1957), 237 Ind. 33, 142 N. E. 2d 610.
However,-my contention, that equity may- not ¿interfere by injunctive relief in the enforcement of: criminal proceedings, has not been accepted by the majority of this court.. Tinder v. Music Operating, Inc., supra. Although. questioning the soundness of their position, I must acquiesce in the decision of the majority .as ,a controlling principle of law in this state. It serves no legitimate purpose to prolong such a contention, for merely personal satisfaction once the reasoning has been fully presented. •
In such a situation I concur with the majority opinion in this.case. I feel that the questioned legislation is within the area of the legislature’s prerogative.. All too frequently, those who are dissatisfied with any particular legislation are prone to ask the courts to review the wisdom or demerits of the laws, on the theory that the judiciary should save them from the unwise or improvident acts of the legislature. The forum for :such complaints is' in the legislature and not the court's. '