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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT