Ott v. Johnson

5 Citing cases

  1. Bodine v. Hiler

    463 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 6 times

    Secondly, it must be recalled that it is our duty to give effect to the plain and manifest meaning of the language used by the legislature. Ott v. Johnson (1974), 262 Ind. 548, 319 N.E.2d 622. "It is only when the language of the statute is ambiguous that the courts should search for legislative intent."

  2. Underwood v. Waddell, (S.D.Ind. 1990)

    743 F. Supp. 1291 (S.D. Ind. 1990)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that a sheriff had the authority to terminate a chief deputy even though a statute only expressly gave the sheriff the power to hire a chief deputy because "the general rule throughout this country is that the power to hire necessarily and implicitly carries with it the power to fire, No authority to the contrary has been located"

    As a result, though not specifically addressed by the parties, the Court must look to the tools of statutory construction to determine what import the statute shall be given. Ott v. Johnson, 262 Ind. 548, 319 N.E.2d 622, 624 (1974) (if statute is ambiguous, courts can search for legislative intent); Daugherty v. State, 466 N.E.2d 46, 52 (Ind.App. 1984) (same); Siddell v. Review Bd of Indiana Emp. Sec. Division, 428 N.E.2d 281, 284 (Ind.App. 1981) (same). After considering the matter and invoking the relevant canons of construction, this Court determines that the county sheriffs do, in fact, have the power to hire and fire their chief deputies at will.

  3. Sloan v. State

    947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011)   Cited 68 times
    Finding no double jeopardy violation because although the act occurred together, there was independent and distinct evidence of both penetration of vagina and fondling of breast

    Thus, this Court will not delve into legislative intent unnecessarily if no ambiguity exists. See Ott v. Johnson, 262 Ind. 548, 552, 319 N.E.2d 622, 624 (1974). The language of Indiana Code section 35-41-4-2(h)(2) is free of ambiguity.

  4. State v. Downey

    476 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. 1985)   Cited 69 times
    In Downey the court found that the particular language at issue ("may endanger" in a child neglect statute) did not "indicate a critical legislative choice or represent the resolution of important issues within the social problem involved."

    The word "may" means in some degree likely to. Webster's Third New International Dictionary. The word "may" expresses ability, possibility, or contingency. Ott v. Johnson (1974), 262 Ind. 548, 319 N.E.2d 622. Therefore, the statute must be read to proscribe placements which to some degree are likely to bring a dependent into a situation in which he is exposed to harm.

  5. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Com'n v. Gault

    405 N.E.2d 585 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that in Indiana an at-will government employee has no property interest in continued employment and is not entitled to procedural protections

    The statute is clear and unambiguous. It is a model of clarity. There is no need for construction. Ott v. Johnson (1974), 262 Ind. 548, 319 N.E.2d 622; Indiana State Highway Commission v. White (1973), 259 Ind. 690, 291 N.E.2d 550. The Commission can employ "and remove at will" and has complete discretion in fixing the duties of the enforcement officers. It is well established in Indiana that if one's employment is at the will of a government agency, that person has no property interest in employment at a particular rank.