ILNews

Court decides Carmel mining case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
More than a year after hearing arguments in a Carmel mining-regulation case, the Indiana Supreme Court decided Thursday that municipalities can regulate mining and don't have to rely on a zoning process to do so.

The unanimous decision came in City of Carmel v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., No. 29S04-0611-CV-469. Justice Frank Sullivan authored the ruling in Carmel's favor after considering the validity of a 2005 city ordinance exerting control over the 50-year-old mining operation by regulating issues such as the mine's hours of operation and intensity at which it could set off blasts.

Marietta argued that Carmel was overstepping its jurisdiction because it didn't follow proper procedure in passing the mining regulation ordinance. Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes had prohibited the city from enforcing the ordinance, and the Court of Appeals agreed in 2006.

Justices heard arguments in January 2007. In Thursday's ruling, the court pointed to Marietta's prevailing argument as a "fairly technical one" and said the company wrongly interpreted the General Assembly's intent in passing a law to regulate mining activities solely through the zoning process.

"But the fallacy in Martin Marietta's argument is its contention that when a unit exercises its police power, at least with respect to mining, the unit is compelled to utilize the zoning process," Justice Sullivan wrote, noting that municipalities must use a process called the 600 Series Procedures allowing a planning commission to first review and make recommendations on a zoning amendment. "But beyond that, a unit may, but is not required to, use the zoning process to regulate mining. In the alternative, the City may proceed as it did here."

This holding is consistent with the "home rule" philosophy, Justice Sullivan wrote, and in that thought Indiana Code 36-8-2-4 and the Home Rule Act authorize the city council to "regulate mining without diminishing the authority of zoning procedures with respect to dictating what type of land use is permitted and where."

The court also noted that the Carmel ordinance doesn't unlawfully delegate legislative authority to an administrative official, as Marietta had also contended.

While no direct impact exists from this state appellate ruling, a federal suit remains pending in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. Filed by Marietta in 2006, the suit accuses Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard of using his political power to stop the company from expanding its mining operation. That suit, Marietta v. Brainard, remains open but is wrapped up in settlement conferences, according to the court docket.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT