ILNews

Opponents won't appeal Geist annexation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Opponents from the 66,000-person town of Geist announced Monday they won't appeal annexation to Fishers. With that, a different Hamilton County legal land battle has become the case attorneys are watching as the one that could be the first real test of Indiana's remonstrance law.

Geist residents announced they wouldn't appeal a Dec. 31 decision from Hamilton Superior Judge Steven Nation that ruled Fishers could annex 2,200 upscale homes on the Geist Reservoir. The Geist area will become part of Fishers next year.

Opponents vowed to appeal Geist v. Town of Fishers, No. 29D01-8404-MI-497-499, but now say they won't continue the legal fight because new property tax caps adopted into law last year mean their taxes won't change much, as had been expected when the annexation battle began four years ago.

This means a similar case that had been put on hold while Geist played out can be focused on more closely. The case of Carmel v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 29A04-0510-CV-578, involves the city's move to annex the 1.6-square mile area near 106th Street and College Avenue.

Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes had determined in 2005 that Carmel couldn't afford the annexation and ruled in favor of Home Place, but the Court of Appeals reversed his decision in October 2007, determining Judge Hughes had erred in auditing a financial plan and ruling in favor of the remonstrators. The appellate court also found that Carmel had adequately proved it could afford to annex the area. The Indiana Supreme Court decided last year not to take the case, leaving it to Judge Hughes on remand.

The judge put the case on hold late last year while the Geist case went through the court system, but now hearings will be scheduled again.

Bose McKinney & Evans attorney Bryan Babb, who represents Carmel, said attorneys are currently assessing how Judge Nation's order in Geist will impact the Home Place case. One important development that wasn't at issue previously in Home Place was the impact of the property-tax caps, which influenced the Geist decision to not appeal, he 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. Welcome to Hendricks County where local and state statutes (especially Indiana Class C misdemeanors) are given a higher consideration than Federal statues and active duty military call-ups.

  2. If real money was spent on this study, what a shame. And if some air-head professor tries to use this to advance a career, pity the poor student. I am approaching a time that i (and others around me) should be vigilant. I don't think I'm anywhere near there yet, but seeing the subject I was looking forward to something I might use to look for some benchmarks. When finally finding my way to the hidden questionnaire all I could say to myself was...what a joke. Those are open and obvious signs of any impaired lawyer (or non-lawyer, for that matter), And if one needs a checklist to discern those tell-tale signs of impairment at any age, one shouldn't be practicing law. Another reason I don't regret dropping my ABA membership some number of years ago.

  3. The case should have been spiked. Give the kid a break. He can serve and maybe die for Uncle Sam and can't have a drink? Wow. And they won't even let him defend himself. What a gross lack of prosecutorial oversight and judgment. WOW

  4. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  5. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

ADVERTISEMENT