ILNews

Government can create fire protection district

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A board of commissioners in a southern Indiana county had the authority under Indiana statute to pass an ordinance creating a county-wide fire protection district, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

At issue in Ronald Sanders, Paul Hardin, Dallas Kelp, et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Brown County, Indiana, et al., No. 07A01-0803-CV-104, is whether a county legislative body may only establish a fire protection district if those who are defined as freeholders under Indiana Code Section 36-8-11 file a petition requesting the district.

The appellants in this case, who are property owners, filed a complaint in Brown Circuit Court requesting declaratory judgment that an ordinance passed by the commissioners was void because they believed Indiana statute only allowed a fire protection district to be established if initiated by the freeholders.

After examining I.C. Sections 36-8-11-4 and -5, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that the sections are not ambiguous when read together and they provide two methods for establishing a district - by petition from the freeholders or by a county's legislative body.

The trial court's interpretation was consistent with I.C. Section 36-8-2-3, which allows for a county, municipality, or township to establish, maintain, and operate a fire prevention system, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. In addition, the appellate court concluded that the General Assembly desired to empower freeholders with the ability to establish a district if a county's legislative body doesn't do so based on the language of I.C. Section 36-8-11-5, which states "Freeholders who desire the establishment of a fire protection district..."

The appellate court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Board of Commissioners of Brown County, and the Board of Fire Trustees of Brown County Fire Protection District.

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. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  2. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  3. 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.

  4. 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....

  5. @ 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???

ADVERTISEMENT