Prock v. Town of Danville
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BAKER, Judge.
Appellants-plaintiffs Roy and Wanda Prock and Timothy and Kimberly Shrout (Plaintiffs) claim that the trial court erred in granting appellees-defendants the Town of Danville, Waste Management of Indiana, Inc., and Paul and Mary Leondis' (collectively Town) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint which alleged that the Town's ordinance that annexed and zoned property for use as a landfill was illegal.
FACTS
Prior to February 1994, Waste Management and the Leondis' requested that the Town of Danville (Town) annex certain real property owned by them and zone the property for…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Chidester v. City of HobartIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
- VF Zahodiakin Engineering Corp. v. BD. OF ADJUSTMENT, CITY OF SUMMITSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1952
- Hartnett v. AustinSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
- Ford Leasing Development Co. v. Board of County CommissionersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1974
- City of Hobart v. ChidesterIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- City of New Haven v. ReichhartIndiana Supreme Court · 2001
- City of Carmel v. SteeleIndiana Supreme Court · 2007
- Old Canton Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. City of JacksonMississippi Supreme Court · 1999
- Gade v. Chittenden Solid Waste DistrictSupreme Court of Vermont · 2009
- Fuehrer v. StormIndiana Court of Appeals · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.