Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ridenour v. Furness

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided February 26, 1987No. 06A01-8610-CV-267Published

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

  1. Indiana State Department of Welfare v. StagnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Rees v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Riggin v. Bd. of Trust. of Ball State Univ.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Howard D. Johnson Co. v. Parkside Development Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1976
  5. Peters v. Davidson, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1977

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API