Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-2-5-2 (2026)
Taxation; appropriations
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. (a) The county fiscal body shall fix:
(1) the rate of taxation for county purposes; and
(2) the rate of taxation for other purposes whenever the rate is not fixed by statute and is required to be uniform throughout the county.
(b) The county fiscal body shall appropriate money to be paid out of the county treasury, and money may be paid out of the treasury only under an appropriation made by the fiscal body, except as otherwise provided by law.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 17-1-24-14; 17-1-28-10 part.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L.11, SEC.151.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1990–2019 · leading case: Allen Cnty. Council v. Allen Circuit Court, 38th Jud. Dist., 549 N.E.2d 364 (Ind. 1990).
Allen Cnty. Council v. Allen Circuit Court, 38th Jud. Dist., 549 N.E.2d 364 (Ind. 1990). “The mandate also ordered that if the Allen County Council failed to establish the offices and the salaries as ordered, Linda Bloom, the Allen County Auditor, should pay from unappropriated funds such sums as may be necessary to fulfill the intent of the mandate. Appellants argue…”
Clark Cnty. v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 12 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. T.C. 2014). “, Ind.Code §§ 36-2-5-2, -11 (2014). In 2007, the Council determined it would not levy the maximum amount of property taxes permitted by statute for the 2008 budget year because it had nearly $4 million in a rainy day fund and wanted to “take some of the burden off of the…”
Leffler v. Meer, 60 F.3d 369 (7th Cir. 1995). “In light of this assertion and Ind.Code § 36-2-5-2, which authorizes the County Council to appropriate money, the Commissioners did not cause the alleged constitutional deprivations.”
Bd. of Commissioners of Clark Cnty. v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 31 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. T.C. 2015). “The Audit Reports stated that the disbursements were unauthorized because the Board failed to obtain an appropriation from the Clark County Council as required under Indiana Code § 36-2-5-2(b) and because Ordinance No.”
Happy Valley LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “” I.C. § 36-2-5-2(b). [16] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-22-1-1, the Purchasing Act is, in general, applicable to “every expenditure of public funds by a governmental body.”
Ind. Code § 36-2-5-2(b): 3 cases
Allen Cnty. Council v. Allen Circuit Court, 38th Jud. Dist., 549 N.E.2d 364 (Ind. 1990). “The mandate also ordered that if the Allen County Council failed to establish the offices and the salaries as ordered, Linda Bloom, the Allen County Auditor, should pay from unappropriated funds such sums as may be necessary to fulfill the intent of the mandate. Appellants argue…”
Bd. of Commissioners of Clark Cnty. v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 31 N.E.3d 552 (Ind. T.C. 2015). “The Audit Reports stated that the disbursements were unauthorized because the Board failed to obtain an appropriation from the Clark County Council as required under Indiana Code § 36-2-5-2(b) and because Ordinance No.”
Happy Valley LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “” I.C. § 36-2-5-2(b). [16] Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 5-22-1-1, the Purchasing Act is, in general, applicable to “every expenditure of public funds by a governmental body.”
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.