ILNews

Judges rule on Clark County surveyor's suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the former Clark County surveyor in his request that he should have been involved in a project involving Lancassange Creek. But the judges reversed summary judgment for the surveyor regarding whether he should have been involved in a project in a subdivision.

Robert Isgrigg, while Clark County surveyor, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against the Clark County Board of Commissioners and Clark County Drainage Board, claiming the boards didn’t follow Indiana Code with regards to his involvement in projects. He claimed that he should have been involved in a project in the Sunset Hills subdivision to fix surface water collecting onto the subject properties. Isgrigg argued that the improvements in Sunset Hill constituted a regulated drain under Indiana code, so he should have been involved. The drainage board had worked with Brian Dixon, a licensed engineer, regarding the surface water problems.

In Clark County Drainage Board and Clark County Board of Commissioners v. Robert Isgrigg, No. 10A05-1102-PL-68, the appellate court found there to be no genuine issues of material fact that there were any regulated drains in the subdivision, as is required to trigger the use of the county surveyor. There were no open channels in the subdivision either before or after the drainage board’s involvement in the project, Judge Edward Najam wrote.

But the COA did affirm summary judgment for Isgrigg in his complaint regarding whether the drainage board had authority to remove an obstruction in the Lancassange Creek project. On appeal, the drainage board conceded that the work should have been administered in accordance with Indiana Code 36-9-27.4, which should have included the participation of the county surveyor.

Because the appellate court held that each party was entitled to a partial grant of summary judgment, it vacated the award of costs to Isgrigg and ordered each party to pay their own costs.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT