ILNews

Justices deny transfer in Home Place appeal

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court won't consider the annexation battle between Carmel and Home Place.

Attorneys received notice March 4 about the court's 5-0 transfer denial in City of Carmel, Indiana v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 29A04-0510-CV-578, which an online docket entry shows the court made Feb. 28.

This means the Oct. 17, 2007, decision by the Court of Appeals stands. The appellate court had ruled in favor of Carmel, holding the city adequately proved it could afford to annex the 1.6-square-mile area of homes and businesses. Judges decided that Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes had erred in auditing a financial plan and ruling in favor of the remonstrators.

Indianapolis attorney Stephen Buschmann filed a petition in November 2007 asking the state's highest court to hear the appeal.

"We're obviously disappointed because we think that Carmel clearly didn't prove its case," Buschmann said. "The Supreme Court is putting an extremely stringent standard on (reviewing) any plan proposed."

One of Carmel's appellate attorneys, Bryan Babb, said he is not surprised by the decision because he believes the court relied on an annexation decision it made last summer in City of Carmel, Indiana v. Certain Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 29S00-0608-CV-300. That decision also came out in Carmel's favor and the court decided that Judge Hughes incorrectly found the fiscal plan to be insufficient. That case is complete and has been settled.

Now, the Home Place case goes back before Judge Hughes to determine the remonstrators' side of the case, Buschmann said. This case remains significant because it's the first real test of the state's current remonstrance statute, he said. Court dates have not yet been scheduled.
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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT