Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-1-3-2 (2026)
Policy
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. The policy of the state is to grant units all the powers that they need for the effective operation of government as to local affairs.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 17-2-2.5-6 part; 18-1-1.5-23 part; 18-4-2-36 part.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Inst. of Indiana, LLC, 785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Inst. of Indiana, LLC, 785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Appellants also assert that "Home Rule" legislation, as defined by Indiana Code section 36-1-3-2 (1997), requires that due process not be applied to Hobart's Common Council proceedings.”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “In view of this provision, the public nuisance statute, which expressly authorizes the City to bring a claim, resolves any doubt.”
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “§ 36-1-3-8(a)(6); and third, the "power to regulate conduct that is regulated by a state agency, except as expressly granted by statute," id.”
City of Crown Point v. Lake Cnty., 510 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1987). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-2. Further, "[alny doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence.”
Sanders v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Brown Cnty., 892 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “” See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-2 (2006). Consistent with the Home Rule Act, the General Assembly has enacted chapter 36-8-11, which allows county governments to establish fire protection districts (“the Act”).”
Chris T. Dehart v. Town of Austin, Indiana, 39 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 1994). “DeHart’s reliance on Indiana Code § 36-l-3-8(a)(7), which provides that a municipality does not have: “[t]he power to regulate conduct that is regulated by a state agency, except as expressly granted by statute,” consequently is misplaced because DeHart’s animals are not…”
Fort Wayne Metro. Human Relations Comm'n v. Marathon Gas Station, 926 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “" I.C. § 36-1-3-2. However, the statute clearly states that "If there is a constitutional or statutory provision requiring a specific manner for exercising power, a unit wanting to exercise the power must do so in that manner.”
City of Charlestown, Indiana v. Charlestown Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Ass'n Corp., Joshua Craven, Tina Barnes, David & Ellen Keith, & Bolder Props., LLC, 111 N.E.3d 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 36-1-3-2 . And the Home Rule Act provides that "a unit has: all powers granted it by statute; and all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.”
Sisters of St. Francis Health Servs., Inc. v. Morgan Cnty., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Ind. 2005). “” Ind.Code § 36-1-3-2. Toward this end, “Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence.”
Irving Materials, Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Johnson Cnty., 683 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). “Ind.Code § 36-1-3-2. Any doubt as to the existence of a unit’s power shall be resolved in favor of its exis-tenee.”
Osborne v. State, 439 N.E.2d 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “Ind.Code § 36-1-3-2: “Policy Sec. 2. The policy of the state is to grant units all the powers that they need for the effective operation of government as to local affairs.”
Brockmann Enter., LLC v. City of New Haven, 868 N.E.2d 1130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Ind.Code § 36-1-3-2. This goal was tempered, however, on the explicit condition that where a statute provides a specific manner for exercising a power, the unit must exercise the power in that manner.”
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.