Chidester v. City of Hobart
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SHEPARD, Chief Justice.
Appellant Jeffrey Chidester challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Lake Superior Court's conclusion that the City of Hobart's fiscal plan for annexing part of Ross Township was adequate. We hold that the plan and evidence are sufficient to sustain the annexation and affirm the trial court.
I. Facts and Case History
This case is here for the second time. On the first appeal, we noted that "[the trial court's findings on much of the remonstrance were unchallenged on appeal and they therefore stand." City of Hobart v. Chidester (1992), Ind., 596 N.E.2d…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- WOERNER, ETC. v. City of IndianapolisIndiana Supreme Court · 1961
- City of Indianapolis, Etc. v. WynnIndiana Supreme Court · 1959
- Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1991
- City of Aurora v. BRYANTIndiana Supreme Court · 1960
- KING v. City of BloomingtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1959
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by76 opinions
- Ben-Yisrayl v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 2000
- Spranger v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995
- Fraley v. MingerIndiana Supreme Court · 2005
- Jay Myoung Yoon v. Sunsook YoonIndiana Supreme Court · 1999
- Shell Oil Co. v. MeyerIndiana Supreme Court · 1998
71 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.