Legal Opinion
City of Carmel v. Steele
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided November 8, 2005No. 29A02-0503-CV-245PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROBB, Judge.
The City of Carmel appeals the trial court's order finding that its ordinance C-265 was invalid. We affirm.
Issue
Carmel raises two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court properly found that Car-mel's ordinance C-265 was invalid because the territory that ordinance sought to annex was not contiguous with Carmel.
Facts and Procedural History
This case centers on Carmel's attempt to annex certain property owned by Landmark on Spring Mill, LLP, also known as AMLI on Spring Mill ("AMLI"), located in Washington Township of Hamilton County.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Robinson v. WroblewskiIndiana Supreme Court · 1998
- Bradley v. City of New CastleIndiana Supreme Court · 2002
- Robinson v. GazvodaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2003
- Kaser v. BarkerIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. KruegerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- City of Carmel v. SteeleIndiana Supreme Court · 2007