ILNews

Justices deny transfer in Home Place appeal

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court won't consider the annexation battle between Carmel and Home Place.

Attorneys received notice March 4 about the court's 5-0 transfer denial in City of Carmel, Indiana v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 29A04-0510-CV-578, which an online docket entry shows the court made Feb. 28.

This means the Oct. 17, 2007, decision by the Court of Appeals stands. The appellate court had ruled in favor of Carmel, holding the city adequately proved it could afford to annex the 1.6-square-mile area of homes and businesses. Judges decided that Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes had erred in auditing a financial plan and ruling in favor of the remonstrators.

Indianapolis attorney Stephen Buschmann filed a petition in November 2007 asking the state's highest court to hear the appeal.

"We're obviously disappointed because we think that Carmel clearly didn't prove its case," Buschmann said. "The Supreme Court is putting an extremely stringent standard on (reviewing) any plan proposed."

One of Carmel's appellate attorneys, Bryan Babb, said he is not surprised by the decision because he believes the court relied on an annexation decision it made last summer in City of Carmel, Indiana v. Certain Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 29S00-0608-CV-300. That decision also came out in Carmel's favor and the court decided that Judge Hughes incorrectly found the fiscal plan to be insufficient. That case is complete and has been settled.

Now, the Home Place case goes back before Judge Hughes to determine the remonstrators' side of the case, Buschmann said. This case remains significant because it's the first real test of the state's current remonstrance statute, he said. Court dates have not yet been scheduled.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT