Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-1-3-3 (2025)
Rule of law; resolution of doubt as to existence of power of a unit
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 3. (a) The rule of law that any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved against its existence is abrogated.
(b) Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence. This rule applies even though a statute granting the power has been repealed.
[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 18
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003).
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “" I.C. § 36-1-3-3(b). In view of this provision, the public nuisance statute, which expressly authorizes the City to bring a claim, resolves any doubt.”
City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3(a), (b). © ' We believe this statutory scheme demonstrates a legislative intent to provide counties, municipalities, and townships with expansive and broad-ranging authority to conduct their affairs Of course this authority is not without limitations.”
Anderson v. Gaudin, 42 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. 2015). “Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3(b). We agree with the commissioners— and the landowners do not'dispute—that no provision in the Fire District Act addresses amendments generally, nor does the- Act expressly deny or expressly grant to another entity the power of the Board of Commissioners to…”
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 730 N.E.2d 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Additionally, the trial court found that Remonstrators’ claim in paragraph 9, alleging that the City violated Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3 by failing to adequately define the City’s corporate boundaries, presented nothing for the trial court to review because Ind.”
O'Connell v. Town of Schererville of Lake Cnty., 779 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “They base this on Indiana Code section 36-1-3-3, the "Home Rule," which states "[aluy doubt as to the existence of a power shall be resolved in favor of its existence.”
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “§ 36-1-3-3(b). [3] In contrast to the City of Gary's numerous unspecified powers as a local governing unit under the Home Rule Act, the Indianapolis Airport Authority's powers as a municipal corporation are limited to those expressly identified in its enabling statute.”
Allen v. City of Hammond, 879 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “” I.C. § 36-1-3-3. The City “may regulate the operation of businesses, crafts, professions, and *647 occupations.”
Raab v. Town of Schererville, 766 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3. A unit may exercise "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.”
Osborne v. State, 439 N.E.2d 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3: “Rule of Law; resolution of doubt as to existence of power of a unit Sec.”
City of Gary v. Major, 792 N.E.2d 962 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Specifically, Indiana Code section 36-1-3-3 states that “any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence.”
The Bd. of Commissioners of Union Cnty., Indiana v. Brandye Hendrickson, in her Off. capacity as Comm'r of the Ind. Dept. of Transp., & the State of Indiana, 67 N.E.3d 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” I.C. § 36-1-3-3. It is well understood that counties “may regulate certain conduct .”
Town of Cedar Lake v. Gina Alessia, Candi Reiling, Andrew Balkema, Individually & as Members of the Town of Cedar Lake Park Bd., 985 N.E.2d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “” I.C. § 36-1-3-3. Accordingly, Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8 does not prohibit the Town from abolishing the Park Board and the Parks Department.”
Ind. Code § 36-1-3-3(a): 3 cases
City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3(a), (b). © ' We believe this statutory scheme demonstrates a legislative intent to provide counties, municipalities, and townships with expansive and broad-ranging authority to conduct their affairs Of course this authority is not without limitations.”
Bezingue v. Steuben Lakes Reg'l Waste Dist., 507 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Ind. 2020).
Taylor v. Town of New Chicago, 839 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Ind. Code § 36-1-3-3(b): 5 cases
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003). “" I.C. § 36-1-3-3(b). In view of this provision, the public nuisance statute, which expressly authorizes the City to bring a claim, resolves any doubt.”
Anderson v. Gaudin, 42 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. 2015). “Ind.Code § 36-1-3-3(b). We agree with the commissioners— and the landowners do not'dispute—that no provision in the Fire District Act addresses amendments generally, nor does the- Act expressly deny or expressly grant to another entity the power of the Board of Commissioners to…”
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “§ 36-1-3-3(b). [3] In contrast to the City of Gary's numerous unspecified powers as a local governing unit under the Home Rule Act, the Indianapolis Airport Authority's powers as a municipal corporation are limited to those expressly identified in its enabling statute.”
Taylor v. Town of New Chicago, 839 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
B&S of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, 159 N.E.3d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
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.