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

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