Court Opinion

ID: 9719801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:04:29.884597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:10.076292
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Lybrook, J.
The appellee-prosecutor submits for our consideration, upon his petition for rehearing, the newly decided case of State ex rel. Lake County Council v. Lake County Court (1977), 266 Ind. 25, 359 N.E.2d 918. That case is an interpretation of the recently promulgated Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 60.5.
We feel that the case at bar is distinguishable from the Lake County case. In Lake County, the controversy centered around the judge mandating funds for the operation of his court. In *38the case at bar, it was the prosecutor who requested and received the order of mandate directing payment of funds. That difference alone distinguishes the two opinions.
Secondly, we feel that the Supreme Court in Lake County was interpreting, and supplying standards of application for TR. 60.5. The specific standard to which we are referring is expressed as:
“In order to facilitate and expedite the hearing before the special judge, we deem it appropriate to provide some guidance for the conduct of the hearing. The issues at the hearing are whether the items mandated are reasonably necessary for the operation of the court, and if so, whether any specific fiscal or other governmental interests are adversely affected by the mandate orders to such a degree as to require that such orders be set aside or modified.” Lake County, supra.
While it appears that the standard is expressed as one of reasonableness of the mandate order, and not reasonableness of the county council’s appropriations, we interpret the language to be limited to the application in TR. 60.5 hearings reviewing orders of mandate by a judge for funds to support his court.
That is not the situation in the case at bar, and we hold that the proper standard of review remains, as was expressed in our previous opinion: namely, when performing a discretionary act a governmental body must be arbitrary and capricious for a reversal of that action to be justified.
We therefore hold the Lake County case is distinguishable and our former opinion stands.
Rehearing denied.
Robertson, C.J., and Lowdermilk, J., concur.
Note. — Reported at 361 N.E.2d 1220.