Ind. Code » Title 32
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 32-30-6-8 (2026)

Nuisance action; remedies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 8. If a proper case is made, the nuisance may be enjoined or abated and damages recovered for the nuisance.

[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 34-19-1-3.]

As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.15.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2023 · leading case: City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 4× “" Indiana Code section 32-30-6-8 allows a "nuisance to be enjoined or abated, and damages recovered for the nuisance.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 32-30-6-8. In City of Gary, we interpreted our public-nuisance statutes in connection with lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, distributors, and dealers and held the plaintiff could bring a public- nuisance action against these defendants for their alleged illegal straw…”
Kb Home Indiana Inc. v. Rockville Tbd Corp., 928 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Moreover, Indiana Code section 32-30-6-8 provides that "[i]f a proper case is made, the nuisance may be enjoined or abated and damages recovered for the nuisance.”
City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 126 N.E.3d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “" Ind. Code § 32-30-6-8 . A civil action to abate or enjoin a nuisance may be brought by "the attorney of any city or town in which a nuisance exists.”
Shaw v. LDC Enter., Inc., 863 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “In Count VIII, Shaw sought injunctive relief under Ind.Code § 32-30-6-8. LDC argues Illinois law governs Counts VI and VII; Count VIII must therefore be dismissed because the statute on which the injunctive remedy is premised is "a remedy for violations of Indiana statutory…”
KA v. City of Indianapolis, 954 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” I.C. § 32-30-6-8 (emphasis added). In other words, as we held in KB Home Indiana, the Kas have “failed to show that a nuisance existed or was ongoing that could be abated or enjoined .”
Haber Land Co. v. Am. Steel City Indus. Leasing, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 1050 (2019). “The first is a pleading issue; Mosey contends that Haber's claim for maintaining a nuisance on neighboring portions of the NATCO Site is inconsistent with its Revised Amended Complaint.”
Kay Morken v. Michael Koltz (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” Ind. Code § 32-30-6-8 . Generally, a nuisance claim contemplates an action designed to cease or lessen the defendant’s behavior.”
Hostetler v. Johnson Controls Inc (N.D. Ind. 2021). · cites it 2× “Ind. Code § 32-30-6-8 . The plain language of the statute contemplates an ongoing/present offending activity or condition.”
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.