Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18 (2026)
Disannexation; appeal of order; bond; scope of order
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 18. (a) An order under section 17 of this chapter may be appealed to the circuit court, superior court, or probate court for the county in which any part of the affected territory is located. If an appeal is brought, the matters determined at the original hearing shall be tried de novo, and the circuit court's, superior court's, or probate court's order may be appealed in the same manner as other civil actions are tried and appealed. The municipality involved in the disannexation may, by its attorney, appear and defend its interests in the proceeding.
(b) The appellant or appellants in the circuit court, superior court, or probate court shall give to the clerk of the municipality a bond:
(1) with a solvent, freehold surety who is a resident of the county in which the territory is located;
(2) conditioned on the due prosecution of the appeal and the payment of all costs accrued by or to accrue against the appellant or appellants; and
(3) in a sum considered adequate by the clerk.
If the clerk approves the bond, the clerk shall immediately make a transcript of all proceedings in the cause and certify it, together with all papers in the cause, to the clerk of the court in which the appeal is filed.
(c) On an appeal under this section, a court may make orders concerning streets and alleys, including their vacation, and award damages.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citations: 18-5-10-47; 18-5-10-48; 18-5-10-52.]
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.84-2016, SEC.171.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1989–2009 · leading case: Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, New Haven did not violate I.C. § 36-4-3-18(d)(1) and (5) by failing to provide for an upgrade to Paulding Road in its fiscal plan.”
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. 2002). “According to Ind.Code § 36-4-3-18, "a court shall order a proposed annexation to take place if the following requirements are met.”
Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003). “Factual and Procedural Background Until 1993, if a municipality sought to annex adjacent territory, it needed to satisfy only the requirements of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18. That section, which remains the law today, set forth a list of conditions ranging from the population…”
City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Inst. of Indiana, LLC, 785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “In Kimsey, the supporters of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18(g) had argued that St. Joseph County had special needs: "the need to preserve rural land around urban areas" and the need "to prevent[ ] competing cities (South Bend and Mishawaka) within the same county from annexing…”
City of Muncie v. Certain Halteman Vill. Section I, 914 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “# ome ook That the City of Muncie failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to its compliance with Indiana Code § 36-4-3-18. That the land owners have met their burden to show they have met the requirements of Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13(e).”
Hancock Cnty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Greenfield, 765 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(@2) or Ind.Code § 36-4-3-18(0)(@2). II. Whether the Commission's grant of Greenfield's petition for change of service area boundaries was supported by sufficient evidence that Greenfield complied with the requirements of Ind.”
City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 751 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “On April 30, 1999, the trial court entered an order concluding that the City had standing to raise the issue of the constitutionality of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18. The Attorney General sought an interlocutory appeal.”
West v. City of Princeton, 901 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “territory [pursuant to subsection 36-4-3-18(b) ] is not germane because the requirements of 1.”
Drake v. City of Fort Wayne, 543 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court erred in finding that the City planned to provide services equivalent in seope to services presently provided areas within the city having similar topography, patterns of land use and population density.”
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 655 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “Subdivided Remonstrators first argue that Elk-hart failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the 439 acres are at least sixty percent "subdivided" under IC. § 36-4-3-18(b)(@2)(B). The definition of subdivided under our annexation statute…”
In re the Annexation Proposed By Annexation Ordinance No. X-06-91, 642 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “CODE § 36-4-3-18(d) (1993). The resolution need not contain the text of the fiscal plan, as long as the plan's contents are incorporated by reference.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(0) — 1 case
Hancock Cnty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Greenfield, 765 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(@2) or Ind.Code § 36-4-3-18(0)(@2). II. Whether the Commission's grant of Greenfield's petition for change of service area boundaries was supported by sufficient evidence that Greenfield complied with the requirements of Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(a)(2) — 1 case
Drake v. City of Fort Wayne, 543 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “The trial court erred in finding that the City planned to provide services equivalent in seope to services presently provided areas within the city having similar topography, patterns of land use and population density.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(b) — 2 cases
West v. City of Princeton, 901 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “territory [pursuant to subsection 36-4-3-18(b) ] is not germane because the requirements of 1.”
Rogers v. Mun. City of Elkhart, 655 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “Subdivided Remonstrators first argue that Elk-hart failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that the 439 acres are at least sixty percent "subdivided" under IC. § 36-4-3-18(b)(@2)(B). The definition of subdivided under our annexation statute…”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(c) — 1 case
Hancock Cnty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Greenfield, 765 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(@2) or Ind.Code § 36-4-3-18(0)(@2). II. Whether the Commission's grant of Greenfield's petition for change of service area boundaries was supported by sufficient evidence that Greenfield complied with the requirements of Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(c)(1) — 1 case
Hancock Cnty. Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Greenfield, 765 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Code § 36-4-3-13(b)(@2) or Ind.Code § 36-4-3-18(0)(@2). II. Whether the Commission's grant of Greenfield's petition for change of service area boundaries was supported by sufficient evidence that Greenfield complied with the requirements of Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(d) — 3 cases
Bradley v. City of New Castle, 764 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. 2002). “According to Ind.Code § 36-4-3-18, "a court shall order a proposed annexation to take place if the following requirements are met.”
West v. City of Princeton, 901 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “territory [pursuant to subsection 36-4-3-18(b) ] is not germane because the requirements of 1.”
In re the Annexation Proposed By Annexation Ordinance No. X-06-91, 642 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “CODE § 36-4-3-18(d) (1993). The resolution need not contain the text of the fiscal plan, as long as the plan's contents are incorporated by reference.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(d)(1) — 1 case
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, New Haven did not violate I.C. § 36-4-3-18(d)(1) and (5) by failing to provide for an upgrade to Paulding Road in its fiscal plan.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(d)(4) — 1 case
In re the Annexation Proposed By Annexation Ordinance No. X-06-91, 642 N.E.2d 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “CODE § 36-4-3-18(d) (1993). The resolution need not contain the text of the fiscal plan, as long as the plan's contents are incorporated by reference.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(d)(5) — 1 case
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Indiana, L.L.C. v. City of New Haven, 755 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, New Haven did not violate I.C. § 36-4-3-18(d)(1) and (5) by failing to provide for an upgrade to Paulding Road in its fiscal plan.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(e) — 2 cases
Mun. City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 781 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. 2003). “Factual and Procedural Background Until 1993, if a municipality sought to annex adjacent territory, it needed to satisfy only the requirements of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18. That section, which remains the law today, set forth a list of conditions ranging from the population…”
City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 751 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “On April 30, 1999, the trial court entered an order concluding that the City had standing to raise the issue of the constitutionality of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18. The Attorney General sought an interlocutory appeal.”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(e)(2) — 1 case
City of Muncie v. Certain Halteman Vill. Section I, 914 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “# ome ook That the City of Muncie failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to its compliance with Indiana Code § 36-4-3-18. That the land owners have met their burden to show they have met the requirements of Indiana Code § 36-4-3-13(e).”
— Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18(g) — 2 cases
City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Inst. of Indiana, LLC, 785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “In Kimsey, the supporters of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18(g) had argued that St. Joseph County had special needs: "the need to preserve rural land around urban areas" and the need "to prevent[ ] competing cities (South Bend and Mishawaka) within the same county from annexing…”
City of South Bend v. Kimsey, 751 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “On April 30, 1999, the trial court entered an order concluding that the City had standing to raise the issue of the constitutionality of Indiana Code section 36-4-3-18. The Attorney General sought an interlocutory appeal.”
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.