Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-1-3-1 (2026)
Application of chapter
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all units.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 17-2-2.5-1 part; 18-1-1.5-1 part; 18-1-1.5-1.5 part; 18-1-1.5-30 part.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.251-1993, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Town of Plainfield v. Town of Avon, 757 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Town of Plainfield v. Town of Avon, 757 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Our analysis begins by looking to Indiana's Home Rule Act 4 Ind.Code §§ 36-1-3-1 to -9. The Home Rule Act abrogated the traditional rule that local *711 governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute and declared that a local government possesses "(alll…”
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “Acts 1657 (codified as amended at Ind.Code §§ 36-1-3-1 to -9 (1993)). The Home Rule Act abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute and declared that a local government possesses "[a]ll other powers necessary…”
City of Carmel v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 883 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. 2008). “As we have observed elsewhere on several occasions, one of the most noteworthy aspects of this recodification was its granting to local units “home rule,” I.C. §§ 36-1-3-1 to -9 (1980), explicitly “abrogating]” the long-standing “Dillon Rule” that “any doubt as to the existence…”
Town of Avon v. West Cent. Conservancy Dist., 957 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 2011). “Ind.Code §§ 36-1-3-1 to -9 (2007). 5 . The trial court denied WCCD’s motion with respect to Count V of WCCD’s complaint.”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “The Home Rule Act The trial court found Indiana Code sections 36-1-3-1 through 9, commonly referred to as the Home Rule Act, to deny the City the authority to sue.”
City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005). “Also applicable in this case is Indiana's Home Rule Act-Indiana Code sections 36-1-3-1 to -9. The Act abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute.”
Hopkins v. Tipton Cnty. Health Dep't, 769 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “, abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possess only those powers expressly authorized 'by statute and declared that a local government possesses "all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs." - Ind. Code § 86-1-3-4 (b)(@Q); City of Gary…”
Bd. of Com'rs of LaPorte Cnty. v. Town & Country Utils., 791 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “The Home Rule Act, Ind. Code § 36-1-3-1 (1998), abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possess only those powers expressly authorized by statute and declared that a local government possesses “all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs.”
Pinkowski v. Calumet Twp. of Lake Cnty., 852 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “…that determine to acquire structures, transportation projects, or systems by lease or lease-purchase." 3 . Ind.Code § 36-1-3-1 et seq.”
Lex, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Paragon, 808 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “§ 36-1-2-28; Ind.Code §§ 36-1-3-1 to 36-1-3-9. Thus, the Board contends that since the Ordinance does not supplement or exclude the power of the Indiana Department of Health (Health Department) to regulate mobile home parks, the Ordinance is valid.”
Kole v. Faultless, 963 N.E.2d 493 (Ind. 2012). “Acts 1657 , 1659-62 (codified as amended at Ind.Code §§ 36-1-3-1 to -9 (2007)). In addition to reaffirming the abrogation of the Dillon Rule, the Home Rule Act provides that in general, a unit is presumed to possess broad powers of local government, unless the Indiana…”
Sisters of St. Francis Health Servs., Inc. v. Morgan Cnty., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Ind. 2005). “, the Indiana Home Rule Act, Indiana Code § 36-1-3-1 et seq., and Indiana zoning laws.”
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.