ILNews

Newburgh ordinance allows it to block town from providing sewer service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Monday decided that the town of Newburgh was statutorily authorized to pass an ordinance prohibiting others from providing new sewer services to customers within four miles of its corporate boundaries.

The town of Chandler sued Newburgh in Warrick Superior Court in April 2012, trying to get the judge to say Newburgh’s ordinance couldn’t prohibit Chandler from providing new sewer services in an overlapping area. For years the two towns have been providing sewer services within the four-mile rings outside their boundaries, which somewhat overlap. In 2007, Newburgh, pursuant to I.C. 36-9-2-16, -17 and -18, passed the ordinance that gave it an exclusive license to furnish sewer service in the regulated territory.

A developer wanted to build in the regulated territory and got estimates from Newburgh and Chandler on sewer services for the subdivision. The developer chose Chandler because Newburgh’s estimate was much higher. Newburgh then sued the developer for violating its ordinance.

Chandler passed a similar ordinance six weeks after Newburgh. The trial court denied summary judgment for either town.

In Town of Newburgh v. Town of Chandler, 87A01-1305-CT-203, the appellate judges ruled in favor of Newburgh, pointing out that it was the first to pass the ordinance. Courts have long used a first-in-time rule, in the absence of other legislative direction, to resolve disputes when two municipalities possess concurrent and complete jurisdiction of a subject matter.

The statutes in question give municipalities several powers, including the ability to prohibit the furnishing of sewer services within four miles of their boundaries. In order to do so, the municipality must pass an ordinance, which Newburgh did in April 2007.

Chandler put forth several arguments as to why it should prevail, but the appellate court relied on the first-in-time rule.

Senior Judge Randall Shepard noted that Chandler and two amici curiae, the Warrick County Commissioners and the City of Boonville, may have a valid argument that Newburgh’s ordinance will chill economic development. The parties claim Newburgh only enforces the ordinance when significant sewer fees are expected, making developers hesitant to invest in projects in Newburgh’s extraterritorial areas because they worry they will be sued if they choose a cheaper sewer provider.

“Resolution of disputes like the one before us by a commission in the executive branch could likely produce more effective and efficient results. The creation of such mechanisms, however, is in the domain of the legislature and not the courts,” he wrote.

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. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT