Sec. 8. (a) If any provision of this Code as now or later
amended or its application to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions that can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application.
(b) Except in the case of a statute containing a nonseverability
provision, each part and application of every statute is severable. If any
provision or application of a statute is held invalid, the invalidity does
not affect the remainder of the statute unless:
(1) the remainder is so essentially and inseparably connected
with, and so dependent upon, the invalid provision or application
that it cannot be presumed that the remainder would have been
enacted without the invalid provision or application; or
(2) the remainder is incomplete and incapable of being executed
in accordance with the legislative intent without the invalid
provision or application.
This subsection applies to every statute, regardless of whether enacted
before or after the passage of this subsection. The general assembly
may preserve the legislative history of this subsection by adoption of
a concurrent resolution and publication of the resolution in the
legislative journals.
(c) The repeal of a statute stating that the provisions of an act are
severable as provided in subsection (b) does not affect the operation of
subsection (b) with respect to that act.
As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.1, SEC.1; P.L.220-2011, SEC.1;
P.L.242-2025, SEC.5.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. Lake Superior Court, 820 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. 2005).
· cites it 3× “Moreover, section 35(v) specifically provides that "the provision of this section are severable as provided in I.C. § 1-1-1-8(b) [the general severability statute].”
State v. Hoovler, 668 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. 1996).
· cites it 4× “See Ind.Code § 1-1-1-8. However, this question may arise in a future case if the population limits operate to exclude another county that would otherwise qualify because of EPA Superfund sites and governmental unit PRPs.”
Back v. Carter, 933 F. Supp. 738 (N.D. Ind. 1996).
· cites it 4× “The invalid provision is severable from the remainder of the statute unless the remainder is inseparably *760 connected to the invalid provision “that it cannot be presumed that the remainder would have been enacted without the invalid provision.”
Cowart v. State, 756 N.E.2d 581 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “See Ind.Code § 1-1-1-8 (1998). Because we hold that the statute is constitutional, we need not reach this argument.”
City of Hammond v. Herman & Kittle Props., Inc., 95 N.E.3d 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “of every statute is severable" and the invalidity of any provision does not affect the remainder unless "the remainder is so essentially and inseparably connected with, and so dependent upon, the invalid provision or application that it cannot be presumed that the remainder…”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 654 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
“§ 1-1-1-8, because the offending provisions of the Act may be deleted without destroying the *764 purpose of the Act, we must reverse the Commission's decision and remand this case to the Commission for a redetermination of the IPL proposal.”
All. for Clean Coal v. Bayh, 888 F. Supp. 924 (S.D. Ind. 1995).
“Accordingly, the court finds the ECPA to be unconstitutional; Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is hereby DENIED.”
— Ind. Code § 1-1-1-8(b) — 4 cases
— Ind. Code § 1-1-1-8(b)(1) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.