Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kosciusko County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Wygant

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1994No. 43S04-9412-CV-1216Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDickson, Justice

I concur with Part I of the majority opinion. However, I respectfully dissent from Part II, which may be read to hold that a local zoning authority is automatically entitled, as a matter of mandatory law, to relief by injunction. I disagree. The issuance of injunctive relief should be left to the discretion of the trial court and subject to appellate review only for abuse of that discretion. The majority's conclusion emphasizes the phrase "entitled to relief by injunction," quoting Fidelity Trust Co. v. Downing (1946), 224 Ind. 457, 464, 68 N.E.2d 789, 792 (emphasis added). In contrast to the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fidelity Trust Co. v. DowningIndiana Supreme Court · 1946
  2. STATE EX REL. BOARD, ETC. v. GoodmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1951
  3. State ex rel. Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. GoodmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API