Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4 (2026)
Rule of law; powers of unit
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 4. (a) The rule of law that a unit has only:
(1) powers expressly granted by statute;
(2) powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and
(3) powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit;
is abrogated.
(b) A unit has:
(1) all powers granted it by statute; and
(2) all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.
(c) The powers that units have under subsection (b)(1) are listed in various statutes. However, these statutes do not list the powers that units have under subsection (b)(2); therefore, the omission of a power from such a list does not imply that units lack that power.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 17-2-2.5-1 part; 17-2-2.5-6 part; 18-1-1.5-16 part; 18-1-1.5-23 part; 18-1-1.5-29; 18-4-2-33 part; 18-4-2-36 part.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000).
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4(a)(1)-(3) ("The rule of law that a unit has only[ ] powers expressly granted by statute; []powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and []powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit[ ] is abrogated.”
City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005). “Instead the Act expressly broadened a governmental unit's authority to include not only all powers granted to it by statute, but also "all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.”
Anderson v. Gaudin, 42 N.E.3d 82 (Ind. 2015). “Further, to the extent the Fire District Act recognizes various roles for a county legislative body after a district has been created, 2 a unit is not limited by the Home *87 Rule Act to “powers expressly granted by statute” but also has “all other powers necessary or desirable…”
Town of Plainfield v. Town of Avon, 757 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4(b)(2); see also City of Crown Point v.”
Tippecanoe Cnty. v. Indiana Mfr.'s Ass'n, 784 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2003). “" Ind.Code Ann. § 36-1-3-4(b)(@Q) (West 1997) (emphasis added).”
The City of Indianapolis, Indiana, & the Indianapolis Dep't of Pub. Works v. Evelyn Cox, 20 N.E.3d 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4 (1980) (a municipality has “all powers granted it by statute” and “all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs”).”
Bd. of Com'rs of LaPorte Cnty. v. Town & Country Utils., 791 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “” I.C. § 36-1-3-4(b)(2) (1998); see also City of Crown Point, 510 N.”
Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Newton Cnty., 802 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2004). “The Home Rule Act "abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute, because it expressly broadened a governmental unit's authority to include not only all powers granted it by statute," but also "all other powers…”
GPI at Danville Crossing, L.P. v. West Cent. Conservancy Dist., 867 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4 (stating municipalities have all powers granted by statute and “all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.”
Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Jay Cnty., Indiana, 956 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1992). “1991), and not the Home Rule Act, Ind.Code Ann. § 36-1-3-4 (West 1983), grant counties the authority to regulate landfills).”
City of Evansville & The Evansville Dep't of Parks & Rec. v. Benjamin A. Magenheimer, 37 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “” Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4. However, local governments only retain a power “to the extent that the power is not expressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute.”
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 § 36-1-3-4 (b). However, the Home Rule Act also provides that "[i]f there is a constitutional or statutory provision requiring a specific manner for exercising a power, a unit wanting to exercise the power must do so in that manner.”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(1) — 1 case
City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005). “Instead the Act expressly broadened a governmental unit's authority to include not only all powers granted to it by statute, but also "all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs, even though not granted by statute.”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(a) — 1 case
Todd Rokita v. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners for the City of Indianapolis (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(a)(1) — 1 case
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4(a)(1)-(3) ("The rule of law that a unit has only[ ] powers expressly granted by statute; []powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and []powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit[ ] is abrogated.”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(b) — 5 cases
Tippecanoe Cnty. v. Indiana Mfr.'s Ass'n, 784 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2003). “" Ind.Code Ann. § 36-1-3-4(b)(@Q) (West 1997) (emphasis added).”
Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Newton Cnty., 802 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2004). “The Home Rule Act "abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute, because it expressly broadened a governmental unit's authority to include not only all powers granted it by statute," but also "all other powers…”
Mance v. Bd. of Directors of the Pub. Employees' Ret. Fund, 652 N.E.2d 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Twp. Bd. of Calumet Tp. v. Elgin, 850 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
B&S of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(b)(2) — 8 cases
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4(a)(1)-(3) ("The rule of law that a unit has only[ ] powers expressly granted by statute; []powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and []powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit[ ] is abrogated.”
Town of Plainfield v. Town of Avon, 757 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4(b)(2); see also City of Crown Point v.”
Bd. of Com'rs of LaPorte Cnty. v. Town & Country Utils., 791 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “” I.C. § 36-1-3-4(b)(2) (1998); see also City of Crown Point, 510 N.”
Klosinski v. Cordry Sweetwater Conservancy Dist., 947 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
Kip Bergman, Scot Gasho, Jane Harper, Philip Overdorf, Brent Snow, & George Tebbe v. Big Cicero Creek Jt. Drainage Bd. (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-4(c) — 1 case
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 36-1-3-4(a)(1)-(3) ("The rule of law that a unit has only[ ] powers expressly granted by statute; []powers necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to powers expressly granted; and []powers indispensable to the declared purposes of the unit[ ] is abrogated.”
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.