Legal Opinion
City of Hobart v. Chidester
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided December 12, 1991No. 45A04-9010-CV-00487PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHEZEM, Judge.
CASE SUMMARY
Appellant-Defendant, City of Hobart (Hobart), appeals from a judgment in favor of Appellees-Plaintiffs, Jeffrey L. Chides-ter et al. (Remonstrators), holding Annexation Ordinance 90-06 invalid. We affirm.
ISSUES
I. Did the trial court lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the remonstration proceeding?
II. Does Ind.Code 36-4-3-13(d)(4) and (5) require Hobart to do more than repeat the statutory language in the annexation fiscal plan and/or resolution?
FACTS
On July 19, 1989, the Common Council of the City of Hobart (Council) passed ordinance 89-20 annexing territory…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- KING v. City of BloomingtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1959
- Mishler v. County of ElkhartIndiana Supreme Court · 1989
- Downham v. WagnerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
- McGaharan v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978
- Drake v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Court of Appeals · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chidester v. City of HobartIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
- City of Hobart v. ChidesterIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
- Santiago v. KilmerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
- City of Hobart v. CarterIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
- City of Hobart v. ChidesterIndiana Supreme Court · 1992