Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8 (2026)

Powers specifically withheld

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 8. (a) Subject to subsection (b), a unit does not have the following:

(1) The power to condition or limit its civil liability, except as expressly granted by statute.

(2) The power to prescribe the law governing civil actions between private persons.

(3) The power to impose duties on another political subdivision, except as expressly granted by statute.

(4) The power to impose a tax, except as expressly granted by statute.

(5) The power to impose a license fee greater than that reasonably related to the administrative cost of exercising a regulatory power.

(6) The power to impose a service charge or user fee greater than that reasonably related to reasonable and just rates and charges for services.

(7) The power to regulate conduct that is regulated by a state agency, except as expressly granted by statute.

(8) The power to prescribe a penalty for conduct constituting a crime or infraction under statute.

(9) The power to prescribe a penalty of imprisonment for an ordinance violation.

(10) The power to prescribe a penalty of a fine as follows:

(A) More than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the violation of an ordinance or a regulation concerning air emissions adopted by a county that has received approval to establish an air permit program under IC 13-17-12-6.

(B) For a violation of any other ordinance:

(i) more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for a first violation of the ordinance; and

(ii) except as provided in subsection (c), more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for a second or subsequent violation of the ordinance.

(11) The power to invest money, except as expressly granted by statute.

(12) The power to adopt an ordinance, a resolution, or an order concerning an election described by IC 3-5-1-2, or otherwise conduct an election, except as expressly granted by statute. An ordinance, a resolution, or an order concerning an election described by IC 3-5-1-2 that was adopted before January 1, 2023, is void unless a statute expressly granted the unit the power to adopt the ordinance, resolution, or order.

(13) The power to adopt or enforce an ordinance described in section 8.5 of this chapter.

(14) The power to take any action prohibited by section 8.6 of this chapter.

(15) The power to dissolve a political subdivision, except:

(A) as expressly granted by statute; or

(B) if IC 36-1-8-17.7 applies to the political subdivision, in accordance with the procedure set forth in IC 36-1-8-17.7.

(16) After June 30, 2019, the power to enact an ordinance requiring a solid waste hauler or a person who operates a vehicle in which recyclable material is transported for recycling to collect fees authorized by IC 13-21 and remit the fees to:

(A) a unit; or

(B) the board of a solid waste management district established under IC 13-21.

(b) A township does not have the following, except as expressly granted by statute:

(1) The power to require a license or impose a license fee.

(2) The power to impose a service charge or user fee.

(3) The power to prescribe a penalty.

[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 17-2-2.5-3 part; 17-2-2.5-4 part; 18-1-1.5-1 part; 18-1-1.5-4; 18-1-1.5-13 part; 18-1-1.5-19 part; 18-1-1.5-20 part; 18-3-1-47 part; 18-3-1-49 part; 18-4-2-2 part; 18-4-2-3; 18-4-2-35(b); 18-4-2-35(c); 19-10-3-1.]

As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L.17, SEC.3; P.L.123-1987, SEC.2; P.L.3-1987, SEC.540; P.L.3-1990, SEC.122; P.L.251-1993, SEC.4; P.L.164-1995, SEC.14; P.L.1-1996, SEC.84; P.L.200-2005, SEC.4; P.L.13-2013, SEC.148; P.L.150-2016, SEC.1; P.L.189-2016, SEC.5; P.L.19-2019, SEC.3; P.L.4-2023, SEC.1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). · cites it 41× “Code § 8-1-2-101(b), prohibiting municipalities from receiving any form of "payment" other than the "direct, actual, and reasonably incurred management costs" for a utility's occupation of a public right-of-way; (3) that the remaining provisions of Ordinances *153 6970 & 6971…”

Siwinski v. Town of Ogden Dunes, 949 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. 2011). · cites it 24× “Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8 (2007). Indiana Code section 36-1-3-8 was amended in 2005 and added subsection (ii), "except as provided in subsection (c), more than seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) for a second or subsequent violation of the ordinance.”

Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 1990). · cites it 23× “Neither the Cable Act nor Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8 provide reimbursement or other damages for consumers who are injured because a municipality charges excess fees.”

Boss v. State, 944 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “at 22 (citing Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8). The majority concedes "the facts that underlie the ordinance violations also give rise to the criminal charges," id.”

Alexander v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff, 891 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “The Class asserts, in summary fashion, that the Sheriffs and the State’s authority to enter into contracts by which they will “reap a benefit” is constrained by statutory prohibitions against excessive license fees, see Ind.Code Ann. § 36-1-3-8(5) (West, PREMISE through 2007 1st…”

Town of Avon v. West Cent. Conservancy Dist., 957 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 2011). · cites it 8× “) While that may be correct, we see little difference in the statutory language of the Review of Powers Provision and the language from Section 36-1-3-8 that we addressed in City of Crown Point .”

Dierckman v. Area Plan. Comm'n of Franklin Cnty., Indiana, 752 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “In turn, Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8(a)(10) provides that a town, municipality, or township does not have the power to prescribe a penalty of .”

City of North Vernon v. Jennings Nw. Reg'l Utils., 829 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2005). · cites it 2× “" Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8. Rather, the Legislature has said, "Any doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence," and this is so "even though a statute granting the power has been repealed.”

Worman Enter., Inc. v. The Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 805 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2004). · cites it 2× “The Home Rule Act significantly expanded the powers of "units" of local government, but expressly prohibited regulation by local agencies of conduct already regulated by a state agency. Id. Worman points out that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management regulates solid…”

Triple G Landfills, Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 774 F. Supp. 528 (S.D. Ind. 1991). · cites it 12× “It seeks a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance is invalid and unenforceable, for any of four reasons: that the Ordinance is preempted by state law, found at Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8(7); that it is a “zoning” ordinance adopted in the absence of the preexisting comprehensive county…”

Dvorak v. City of Bloomington, 796 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. 2003). · cites it 2× “" I.C. § 36-1-3-8(b). We have applied the Home Rule Act in construing the zoning authority of governmental units.”

Bd. of Com'rs of LaPorte Cnty. v. Town & Country Utils., 791 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “Code 31-15-1-3] and to determine the “need” that would be satisfied by the construction of a given solid waste facility.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(3) — 1 case

Town of Merrillville v. Merrillville Conservancy Dist. Ex Rel. Bd. of Directors, 649 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(5) — 5 cases

Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 1990). “Neither the Cable Act nor Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8 provide reimbursement or other damages for consumers who are injured because a municipality charges excess fees.”

City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). “Code § 8-1-2-101(b), prohibiting municipalities from receiving any form of "payment" other than the "direct, actual, and reasonably incurred management costs" for a utility's occupation of a public right-of-way; (3) that the remaining provisions of Ordinances *153 6970 & 6971…”

Alexander v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff, 891 N.E.2d 87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “The Class asserts, in summary fashion, that the Sheriffs and the State’s authority to enter into contracts by which they will “reap a benefit” is constrained by statutory prohibitions against excessive license fees, see Ind.Code Ann. § 36-1-3-8(5) (West, PREMISE through 2007 1st…”

Lindstrom v. City of Des Moines, IA, 470 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (S.D. Iowa 2007).

Alexander v. Cottey, 801 N.E.2d 651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(6) — 2 cases

Farley Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town of Speedway, 747 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(7) — 3 cases

Triple G Landfills, Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 774 F. Supp. 528 (S.D. Ind. 1991). “It seeks a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance is invalid and unenforceable, for any of four reasons: that the Ordinance is preempted by state law, found at Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8(7); that it is a “zoning” ordinance adopted in the absence of the preexisting comprehensive county…”

Bd. of Com'rs of LaPorte Cnty. v. Town & Country Utils., 791 N.E.2d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Code 31-15-1-3] and to determine the “need” that would be satisfied by the construction of a given solid waste facility.”

Worman Enter., Inc. v. Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 779 N.E.2d 565 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(10) — 1 case

Dierckman v. Area Plan. Comm'n of Franklin Cnty., Indiana, 752 N.E.2d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “In turn, Indiana Code Section 36-1-3-8(a)(10) provides that a town, municipality, or township does not have the power to prescribe a penalty of .”

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(10)(B) — 1 case

Boss v. State, 944 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “at 22 (citing Ind.Code § 36-1-3-8). The majority concedes "the facts that underlie the ordinance violations also give rise to the criminal charges," id.”

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(3) — 3 cases

Town of Avon v. West Cent. Conservancy Dist., 957 N.E.2d 598 (Ind. 2011). “) While that may be correct, we see little difference in the statutory language of the Review of Powers Provision and the language from Section 36-1-3-8 that we addressed in City of Crown Point .”

David Anderson, Comm., Joe Wray, Comm., & Bd. of Trs., Brown Co. Fire. Prot. Dist. v. Susanne Gaudin, Janet Kramer, & Ruth Reichmann (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

B&S of Fort Wayne, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(4) — 1 case

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(5) — 4 cases

Allen v. City of Hammond, 879 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Area Plan Comm'n of Evansville v. Evansville Outdoor Advert., Inc., 789 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(6) — 3 cases

Farley Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town of Speedway, 765 N.E.2d 1226 (Ind. 2002).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(7) — 9 cases

Worman Enter., Inc. v. The Boone Cnty. Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist., 805 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2004). “The Home Rule Act significantly expanded the powers of "units" of local government, but expressly prohibited regulation by local agencies of conduct already regulated by a state agency. Id. Worman points out that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management regulates solid…”

Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources v. Newton Cnty., 802 N.E.2d 430 (Ind. 2004).

Sisters of St. Francis Health Servs., Inc. v. Morgan Cnty., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (S.D. Ind. 2005).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(a)(8) — 3 cases

Town of Newburgh v. Town of Chandler, 999 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Town of Avon v. West Cent. Conservancy Dist., 937 N.E.2d 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-8(b) — 1 case

Dvorak v. City of Bloomington, 796 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. 2003). “" I.C. § 36-1-3-8(b). We have applied the Home Rule Act in construing the zoning authority of governmental units.”

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.