State v. Hoovler

ON REHEARING PER CURIAM. The Tippecanoe Circuit Court held that a statute enacted in 1994 principally to permit Tippecanoe County to finance environmental reclamation at its sanitary landfill violated Article IV, Sections 22 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution. This Court reversed, in a decision producing three opinions. State v. Hoovler, 668 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind.1996). Appellee Hoovler, by his counsel Thomas J. Herr, has petitioned for rehearing. In his brief accompanying the petition, Herr assaults by name the members of the Court who voted to reverse as being in “dereliction of his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution,” as “equally culpable,” and as assuming power to “repeal” the Constitution. Counsel elaborates on these assaults with liberal use of terms like “absurd” and “fabricated.” The Attorney General has filed a motion to strike portions of the brief in support of the petition for rehearing as impertinent under Indiana Trial Rule 12(F). Her motion is well taken. Striking scandalous or impertinent material has been a part of Indiana practice since long before the adoption of our present trial rules. See, e.g., Guthrie v. Howland, 164 Ind. 214, 73 N.E. 269 (1905). The Attorney General’s motion to strike is granted. SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur. SULLIVAN, J., not participating.