ILNews

COA: Dispute with camp should be heard in White County

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The YMCA Camp Tecumseh’s quest to stay a zoning decision that allows a confined feeding operation to set up shop next to the camp’s property should be heard in White County, not Carroll County where the camp is located, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

The White County Board of Commissioners approved the rezoning of a tract of land in White County to allow more than 9,000 hogs in a confined feeding operation. Camp Tecumseh, located in Carroll County but on the county line, is adjacent to the parcel that contains the rezoned property.

The camp filed a petition for judicial review and stay of zoning decision in Carroll County against the White County Board of Commissioners. The board of commissioners filed a motion to dismiss, alleging Carroll County wasn’t a proper venue. The trial court denied the motion to transfer venue pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 75, citing that Carroll County is a preferred venue because the petitioners are residents of that county.

“Though the Camp is clearly concerned about the anticipated future injury to its land in Carroll County as a result of the rezoning, this does not change the nature of the suit. The Camp’s cause of action is for judicial review of a White County ordinance rezoning White County land and will involve review of documents filed, proceedings held, and findings and decisions made only in White County,” Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote. “The Camp’s judicial review action does not relate to land in Carroll County for purposes of T.R.75(A)(2). Because Carroll County is not a county of preferred venue, the trial court erred by denying the motion for transfer of venue to White County. On remand, the Carroll Circuit Court is directed to grant the White County Board’s motion to transfer.”

The case is White County Board of Commissioners v. Y.M.C.A. Camp Tecumseh, Inc., 08A04-1401-MI-17.  



 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT