The Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed today that Indiana requires that an annexation ordinance applies only to solid, unbroken
areas of land. This issue arose in an annexation dispute between two northern Indiana towns.
In Town
of Dyer, Lake County, Ind. v. Town of St. John, Ind., et al., No. 45A03-0908-CV-360, Dyer appealed the dismissal
of its amended complaint for declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction preventing St. John from annexing land Dyer intended
to annex.
Dyer introduced an ordinance in 2008 to annex three separate parcels of land that adjoined the town's existing boundaries,
but didn't adjoin each other. Dyer didn't act on the ordinance and several months later, at the encouragement of landowners,
St. John began annexing some of the land proposed in the Dyer ordinances.
Dyer tried to prevent the annexation, but the trial court dismissed its complaint and amended complaint because Dyer's
annexation attempt was void and unenforceable.
Dyer's annexation ordinance was invalid because it contained three non-adjacent parcels, the Court of Appeals concluded.
The judges found the statutory definition of contiguous is ambiguous with respect to whether all of the land a municipality
wants to annex in a single ordinance must form a uniform, undivided body.
Using caselaw on the matter, the appellate judges believed it still stood that the land a municipality wants to annex should
consist of one uniform body and not separate pieces of land.
"Since 1864, there has been an understanding that all of the tracts of land a municipality seeks to annex must be contiguous
to each other," wrote Judge Michael Barnes. "If the legislature had wanted to allow the annexation of multiple,
non-adjacent parcels of land in a single annexation ordinance, which would appear to contravene over a century of case law,
it could have expressly drafted the new definition of contiguity in 1981 to clearly say so."
Allowing a municipality to simultaneously annex disjointed parcels of land in one ordinance would violate the basic principles
behind the contiguity requirement, such as impacting the ability to provide city services.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.