Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Board of Com'rs of LaPorte County v. Town & Country Utilitiesgreen1 sentence2006Bd. of Comm'rs of LaPorte County v. Town & Country Utils., Inc., 791 N.E.2d 249, 257 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (emphasis added), trams. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crooked Creek Conservation & Gun Club, Inc. v. Hamilton County North Board of Zoning Appeals
green
2 sentences2016“Since remonstrators need not affirmatively disprove an applicant’s case, a board of zoning appeals may deny an application for a special exception on the grounds that an applicant has failed to carry its burden of proving compliance with the relevant statutory criteria regardless of whether remonstrators present evidence to negate the existence of the enumerated factors.” Id. [9] Bull argues that the trial court’s order affirming the decision of the Board, which denied her application for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance, was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and un 2011Id. | 3 | 2010–2016 |
Midwest Minerals Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals
green
1 sentence2012“Because remonstrators need not affirmatively disprove an applicant’s case, a board of zoning appeals may deny an application for a special exception on the grounds that an applicant has failed to carry its burden of proving compliance with the relevant statutory criteria regardless of whether the remonstrators present evidence to negate the existence of the enumerated factors.” Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ripley County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Rumpke of Indiana, Inc.
green
1 sentence1997Since remonstrators need not affirmatively disprove an applicant’s case, a board of zoning appeals may deny an application for a special exception on the grounds that an applicant has failed to carry its burden of proving compliance with the relevant statutory criteria regardless of whether re-monstrators present evidence to negate the existence of the enumerated factors. 1 See Ripley Co., supra, 663 N.E.2d at 207 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bolde
green
2 sentences1989In a published opinion dated December 5, 1988, we reversed the trial court, holding that res judicata did not bar an application for a special exception subsequent to an application for a use variance which was denied. 530 N.E.2d 1212 . 1989In a published opinion dated December 5, 1988, we reversed the trial court, holding that res judicata did not bar an application for a special exception subsequent to an application for a use variance which was denied. 530 N.E.2d 1212 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.