Ridenour v. Furness
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentSullivan, Judge
I respectfully dissent. This appeal should be dismissed as moot.
At the outset, I think it appropriate to voice my disagreement with the conclusion of the majority that the commercial fishermen do not have a cognizable legal interest so as to permit a challenge to the validity or reasonableness of the Department’s emergency regulation. Presumably, the majority would not permit these plaintiffs to challenge the regulation even if it were patently unconstitutional. I conclude otherwise.
To be sure, the licenses under which the commercial fishermen operate are revocable and the use of such…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Indiana State Department of Welfare v. StagnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
- Riggin v. Bd. of Trust. of Ball State Univ.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1986
- Howard D. Johnson Co. v. Parkside Development Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1976
- Peters v. Davidson, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1977
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.