Court Opinion

ID: 9568603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:05:36.528532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:49:35.668660
License: Public Domain

Hunt, Justice,
concurring.
I write separately to elaborate on the procedure, as I understand it, for the review of a court’s exercise of its inherent power.
Needless to say, the exercise of such power by a judicial officer is the last resort and is indulged in only when all else has failed in an effort to reach agreement with the county concerning the court’s needs.1 In that unhappy event, however, the first step is the issuance *318of a certificate by the court which, by way of affidavit, fully justifies the particular need and the need for the exercise of inherent power as well. To this certificate the county may consent or may file a protest within thirty days. The protest may challenge the legitimacy of both the need and the exercise of inherent power. The judges’ action, however, enjoys a presumption of legitimacy by virtue of the certificate so that the burden rests on the county to demonstrate otherwise.
Ordinarily the protest would be heard by a superior court judge of another circuit.2 The protest would be heard as a part of the court’s equity jurisdiction and would in no event involve a jury.3 The protest should be given priority consideration, but should delay occur, it would be within the hearing-judge’s discretion whether the county should comply with the certificate pending the outcome. The judgment entered on the protest hearing would be appealable by either party to this court.
In the event no protest is filed by the county, the certificate would become an enforceable judgment at the expiration of thirty days from its issuance.
Our research fails to reveal the existence of any jurisdiction in which the exercise of the inherent power of the courts is free from independent judicial review.4 It appears that in most instances the remedy is the filing of a mandamus action by the judges in which the burden of proof would fall upon them as moving parties. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Tate, 274 A2d 193 (Pa. 1971); Third Judicial Circuit v. County of Wayne, 190 NW2d 228 (Mich. 1971). In at least one state an order may be issued with the approval of the circuit’s chief judge, similar to the certificate described herein, but the county’s remedy is the filing of a declaratory judgment action. O’Coins, Inc. v. Treasurer of County of Worcester, 287 NE2d 608 (Mass. 1972). The procedure outlined is, I believe, preferable to either of those.
Patently, this process is not available to the judges of the inferior courts or other court officers. Their remedy would be limited to mandamus in the superior court. See, for example, Grimsley v. Twiggs County, 249 Ga. 632 (292 SE2d 675) (1982).
I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner joins in this concurrence.
*319Decided June 21, 1990 —
Reconsideration denied July 12, 1990.
Brennan, Harris & Rominger, Edward T. Brennan, Emily E. Garrard, for appellants.
Jones, Osteen, Jones & Arnold, Charles M. Jones, for appellee.

 The very conception of inherent power carries with it the implication that its use is for occasions not provided for by established methods .... [0]nly when . . . [established] methods fail and the court shall determine that by observing them the assistance necessary for the due and effective exercise of its own functions cannot be had, or when an emergency arises which the established methods cannot or do not instantly meet, then and not until then does occasion arise for the exercise of the *318inherent power.
State v. Sullivan, 137 P 392, 395 (Mont. 1913).

 It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which the better practice would not be to have an outside judge handle the hearing.

 I assume, moreover, that the question to be resolved at the protest hearing is whether the issuance of the certificate amounted to an abuse of discretion, a question not of fact but of law.

 The exercise of this power does not reside in any particular judge or any particular court, but in the judicial branch itself, and is subject to review within that branch.