ILNews

Judge rules Fishers can annex Geist

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana caselaw is well settled on jurisdiction relating to annexations and incorporations, and a Hamilton Superior judge has determined Fishers should be allowed to proceed with annexing thousands of acres in Geist.

Judge Steven Nation ruled today on a high-publicity case involving the proposed annexation by Fishers of 2,200 homes in unincorporated Geist area. At issue was whether the county had jurisdiction over the annexation because of the timeline of petitions filed.

In mid-September Fishers had introduced an ordinance to start annexing the land, but four days later Geist filed an incorporation petition of its own with the county to form its own towns of East and West Geist.

Attorneys had asked the judge to stop Fishers from annexing homes and allow the Hamilton County Commissioners to rule, with both sides arguing they'd taken the "first step" in its own proceedings. The city contended the ordinance introduction sufficed, while interveners argued that an ordinance or fiscal plan adoption is needed.

Relying on Indiana Supreme Court decisions going back more than a century in Taylor v. City of Ft. Wayne, 47 Ind. 274, 282 (1874), Judge Nation cited that jurisdictional disputes are well-settled and become exclusive when proceedings are "first instituted."

"Fishers 'first instituted,' 'first undertook,' or otherwise took the 'first step' towards its annexation of the disputed area when its Town Council introduced and conducted a first reading ..." Judge Nation wrote, noting the courts have said the rule was intended to "avoid the conflict and confusion which would result from separate jurisdictional authorities proceeding at the same time."

The judge also explored similar issues and rulings from Texas and Missouri's appellate courts, holding that those jurisdictions have been consistent with Indiana's prior jurisdiction rule in the Taylor case.

Bryan Babb with Bose McKinney & Evans, one of the attorneys representing Fishers, said there was never any doubt and this is simply a 21st Century update of previous decisions on jurisdictional rule in competing annexations and incorporations.

"If you're asking a trial judge to rewrite law, you need to present what the other side of jurisdictional coin is," Babb said. "They weren't able to do that, and the judge determined that the phrase 'first instituted' here meant a simple meeting with an ordinance introduction."

The ruling means that Fishers can proceed with its annexation proceedings as soon as next week, Babb said.

 
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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT