Sec. 9. (a) The area inside the boundaries of a county
comprises its territorial jurisdiction. However, a municipality has
exclusive jurisdiction over bridges (subject to IC 8-16-3-1), streets,
alleys, sidewalks, watercourses, sewers, drains, and public grounds
inside its corporate boundaries, unless a statute provides otherwise.
(b) The area inside the corporate boundaries of a municipality
comprises its territorial jurisdiction, except to the extent that a statute
expressly authorizes the municipality to exercise a power in areas
outside its corporate boundaries.
(c) Whenever a statute authorizes a municipality to exercise a power
in areas outside its corporate boundaries, the power may be exercised:
(1) inside the corporate boundaries of another municipality, only
if both municipalities, by ordinance, enter into an agreement
under IC 36-1-7; or
(2) in a county other than the county in which the municipal hall
is located, but not inside the corporate boundaries of another
municipality, only if both the municipality and the other county,
by ordinance, enter into an agreement under IC 36-1-7.
(d) If the two (2) units involved under subsection (c) cannot reach
an agreement, either unit may petition the circuit or superior court of
the county to hear and determine the matters at issue. The clerk of the
court shall issue notice to the other unit as in other civil actions, and the
court shall hold the hearing without a jury. There may be a change of
venue from the judge but not from the county. The petitioning unit
shall pay the costs of the action.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: subsection
(a) formerly 17-2-2.5-4 part; 18-5-10-4 part; subsection (b) formerly
18-1-1.5-1 part; subsections (c) and (d) formerly
18-1-1.5-21.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.211, SEC.1. Amended by
P.L.169-2015, SEC.169; P.L.149-2016, SEC.91.
Notes of Decisions
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000).
· cites it 8× “A local government's specified power to manage the "public grounds" falling within its borders, see Ind.Code § 36-1-3-9(a), includes the unspecified power to operate in a proprietary capacity to charge fair and reasonable compensation for the private, commercial use of these…”
Town of Plainfield v. Town of Avon, 757 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Indiana Code section 36-1-3-9 provides in pertinent part that: (a) The area inside the boundaries of a county comprises its territorial jurisdiction.”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003).
· cites it 2× “It is true that Indiana Code section 36-1-3-9(b) defines the jurisdiction of a City as its corporate boundary, and Indiana Code seetion 36-1-3-8 expressly prohibits a City from imposing duties upon other political subdivisions.”
Spranger v. State, 498 N.E.2d 931 (Ind. 1986).
· cites it 2× “See I.C. § 36-1-3-9 and I.C. § 36-1-2-11. It is an unreasonable construction to conclude that an officer of a particular local governmental unit has the power to act outside that unit in the absence of express *958 statutory authorization.”
Beta Steel Corp. v. Porter Cnty., 695 N.E.2d 979 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “Cities and counties are each granted the broad authority to regulate conduct that might endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.”
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 711 N.E.2d 79 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Ind Code § 36-1-3-9 (1993). . The City further argues that, even if IC 8—1—2— 101 as amended in March 1998 does apply to its ordinances, IC 8-1-2-101 only proscribes rental fees for a public utility's occupancy of its rights-of-way, not for the utility's use of its rights-of-way.”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-9(a) — 1 case
City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000).
“A local government's specified power to manage the "public grounds" falling within its borders, see Ind.Code § 36-1-3-9(a), includes the unspecified power to operate in a proprietary capacity to charge fair and reasonable compensation for the private, commercial use of these…”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-9(b) — 1 case
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 801 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2003).
“It is true that Indiana Code section 36-1-3-9(b) defines the jurisdiction of a City as its corporate boundary, and Indiana Code seetion 36-1-3-8 expressly prohibits a City from imposing duties upon other political subdivisions.”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-9(c)(1) — 1 case
Town of Plainfield v. Town of Avon, 757 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“Indiana Code section 36-1-3-9 provides in pertinent part that: (a) The area inside the boundaries of a county comprises its territorial jurisdiction.”
— Ind. Code § 36-1-3-9(d) — 1 case
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.