Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ailes v. Decatur County Area Planning Commission

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1983No. 583S171Published

1DissentHunter, Justice

I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The ultimate purpose of zoning regulations is to promote the public's health, safety, convenience, and welfare by regulating the uses of private property within certain areas. This has consistently been recognized as a legitimate and constitutionally valid exercise of the state's police power. Field v. Area Plan Commission of Grant County, Inc., (1981) Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 1132. There must necessarily be some private loss whenever regulations involving the general public welfare are enacted. But courts have almost universally adopted a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Art Neon Co. v. The City and County of Denver, a Municipal Corporation, and Anthony H. Jansen, Gump Glass Co., Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
  2. Jacobs v. Mishawaka Board of Zoning AppealsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979
  3. Nelson v. THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ETC.Indiana Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Bird v. Delaware Muncie Metropolitan Plan CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1981
  5. Field v. AREA PLAN COM'N OF GRANT CTY., IND.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1981

2 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