Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided June 30, 2000No. 45S03-0006-CV-393Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
BOEHM,
Justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that the 1998 legislation discussed by the majority in Part IV of its opinion made clear that the revenue measures the City of Gary sought to impose were beyond the powers of the City. I respectfully dissent, however, from Parts II and III of the opinion insofar as they found these measures lawful before 1998.
The majority begins its opinion by describing the revenue raised by the ordinance as “a ‘requirements-based fee’ on all telecommunications providers using the City’s rights-of-way.” From this premise it concludes that: (1)…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Diginet, Incorporated v. Western Union Ats, Incorporated, Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant v. City of Chicago, Third-Party-Plaintiff-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Indianapolis Airport AuthorityIndiana Court of Appeals · 1993
- City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1999