ILNews

INDOT can take Ohio County property for road improvements

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found Wednesday that the Indiana Department of Transportation is entitled by law to acquire a portion of an Ohio County couple’s property to improve State Road 56.

In Nick Domaschko and Edwina Domaschko, and their Respective Trusts, et al. v. State of Indiana, 58A01-1206-PL-261, Nick and Edwina Domaschko challenged the trial court’s order of immediate appropriation and appointment of appraisers regarding certain portions of the 900 acres they own that INDOT sought for the road project. They claimed that some of the real estate INDOT sought to appropriate wasn’t related to highway purposes: a 50-foot buffer zone associated with the relocation of a creek and a portion of land associated with a shared driveway that straddles two properties.

The Domaschkos argued that INDOT doesn’t have the authority to acquire land to “plant trees or to maintain driveways unrelated to road construction.”  But INDOT presented evidence and testimony that it needed to relocate the creek, which requires installing a 50-foot buffer zone and includes the planting of trees along the relocated portions of the creek.  The buffer zone is required as part of the permitting process.

The Domaschkos also argued that the permanent acquisition of the land to be used as a shared driveway between them and the water company is unnecessary because the water company has another entrance.

“However, INDOT presented testimony explaining that the Domaschkos’ expert’s design was not viable and that a permanent right-of-way was necessary because ‘[t]he driveway is shared by two property owners, so according to Indiana design manual, we have to take permanent right-of-way. We cannot take temporary right-of way from one owner to build a drive . . . for another,’” Judge Michael Barnes wrote. “Thus, it is clear that the acquisition of this property is related to the improvement of State Road 56 and, therefore, INDOT is statutorily authorized to acquire the property for the driveway.”


 

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT